Accounting And Aboriginal Peoples: From the Bottom Line to Lines of Relation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
According to the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, rebuilding Aboriginal economies and nations will require "radical departures from business as usual." In the interests of such radical change, this essay traces the role of accounting in obstructing and obscuring Aboriginal peoples' opportunities, achievements, and contributions and explains how Aboriginal thinking and institutions are helping redefine success measures and increase choice by making visible alternative paths and promoting sustainable development for all. Building on ongoing efforts to think and act outside colonial conceptual boxes and celebrate culturally meaningful, holistic Aboriginal economic performance, this essay recommends a double strategy to address the historical impact of traditional accounting on Aboriginal peoples and economies by (a) displacing old paternalistic models that constructed Aboriginal "problems" and (b) respecting and learning from Aboriginal powers, achievement, and measures of success. Only when Indigenous knowledge and values are put at the centre of authoritative practices will accounting do justice to the specificities of Aboriginal experience in Canada, support and sustain Aboriginal aspirations and economies, help Canada live up to its treaty promises to Aboriginal peoples, and forge a truly post-colonial Canadian.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".