Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this issue, writers continue to share interesting and innovative research on a variety of topics key to better understanding Aboriginal community, economic, business, and entrepreneurial development.The four articles profiled in this section of JAED relate to Aboriginal wineries in New Zealand and Canada, job satisfaction and Indigenous labour mobility, the First Nation social economy, and accountability in the Aboriginal gaming industry.In the first piece, Missens, Dana, and Yule compare and contrast entrepreneurial activities in Indigenous communities located in Canada and New Zealand.Highlighting the value of Aboriginal communities becoming involved in "non-traditional" activities, the authors analyze the activities of two Indigenous communities involved in the wineries industry.They conclude that, while the activities were similar in that entrepreneurship seemed to be a collective activity, there are differences in the objectives, or purposes, of the two enterprises.The authors also explore the idea of social and psychological acculturation as a factor in the success of Indigenous entrepreneurial activities.Social and psychological acculturation refers to the "psychological and behavioural changes that an individual experiences as a result of sustained contact with members of other cultural groups".This theory suggests that as acculturation increases, associations with culture, identity, and community and family relations will decrease.In the second article, Gayle Broad shares her reflections on the First Nation social capital derived from her involvement with a major project that took place in and with several First Nation
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 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.159 | 0.099 |
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".