MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392815673 · doi:10.29173/jaed289

The Saskatchewan Indian Gaming Authority’s Approach To Securing Public Trust, 2000–2004

2010· article· en· W4392815673 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yale D. Belanger

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Aboriginal Economic Development · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorporationGovernment (linguistics)AccountabilityPublic relationsPublic trustEconomic JusticePublic administrationQuarter (Canadian coin)BusinessPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effects of the SIGA scandal, or the "Dutch Lerat Affair," as it was branded, led many to publicly question SIGA's accountability, which potentially undermined its corporate image. Since a corporation's image is the link between corporate reality and public perception, how people view a company is vital to that company's success. In 1993, the FSIN approached Premier Roy Romanow (NDP) to discuss reserve casino construction. Since taking the reins in 1991, Premier Romanow had been considered pro-business and compassionate towards First Nations issues, leading Chief Roland Crowe to comment, "This historical relationship meant that the Native leadership felt comfortable initiating a discussion regarding a Native casino gambling policy with the NDP government, which demonstrated an impressive level of trust in the Romanow government" (Skea, 1997, p. 103). Seeking to establish a working relationship with the province that would lead to new gaming policies benefiting its member communities, the FSIN cited a corresponding desire to stimulate economic development. Each CDC was established to aid in distributing one-quarter of the net profit share pursuant to the Framework Agreement in an effort to (i) stimulate First Nations economic development; (ii) fund reserve justice and health initiatives; (iii) finance reserve education and cultural development; (iv) improve community infrastructure; and (v) develop senior and youth programs and other charitable purposes.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.122
Threshold uncertainty score0.884

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0300.010
Scholarly communication0.0190.004
Open science0.0040.008
Research integrity0.0080.016
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.235 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Aboriginal Economic DevelopmentSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207