Generating Social Capital In First Nations: Learnings from the USIC Project
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Social capital has become a much-used phrase in academic literature to describe relationships of trust that evolve between partnering organizations, individuals, governments and academics. Using a case study approach this paper explores the mobilization of internal and external networks that occurred in the "Understanding the Strengths of Indigenous Communities" (USIC) project1 to uncover some considerations for the generation of social capital within First Nations. The paper identifies some key factors to consider in the development of social capital in First Nations, including using strengths - rather than deficits. This entails respecting and including a diversity of perspectives and community members and establishing processes and protocols for relationships both within the community and with external partners and organizations. The paper concludes that building cross-cultural networks requires time, patience, perseverance, and effort, and will be constantly challenging. However, these networks may also benefit the collective interests of First Nations by encouraging community engagement and power-sharing within communities.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.005 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it