Bibliographic record
Abstract
The State of the Aboriginal Economy is a section of this journal that examines different aspects of the environment that may contribute to the economic well-being of Aboriginal communities and individuals.It is not intended to provide an assessment of how well or poorly Aboriginals across Canada are doing economically.If such an examination was provided, we would likely find that there is an extremely broad range results being achieved.Some communities are doing very well, many are struggling and others are getting by.This section includes four papers that address issues relating to the economic well-being of Aboriginals.A common theme among these four papers is the opportunities for enhancing Aboriginal economies.Seaman, Robertson and Ford discuss, in broad terms, investment opportunities for Aboriginal communities.This is presented in ways that are consistent with Indigenous laws and traditions, while recognizing constraints imposed by the federal government.Four potential areas that provide investment opportunities for those communities in a position to do so are reviewed.These include the gaming industry, with a focus on Saskatchewan, energy generation, with a focus on Ontario, carbon offset projects, which is still evolving and commercial real estate.Bailie, Parungao, Ouellette and Russell report on opportunities within the forestry sector.This includes the finding that Aboriginal communities have increased the amount of forestry under their management.Further, there has been a significant increase in the total median income for off-reserve Aboriginal men working in forestry.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".