MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403666381 · doi:10.29173/jaed10

The Economic Benefits of a Major Canadian Forestry Contribution Program for Indigenous Peoples

2024· article· en· W4403666381 on OpenAlexaffabout
Dieter Kuhnke, Ian Graham Cahill

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Aboriginal Economic Development · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsCanadian Forest ServiceNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousForestryAgroforestryGeographyNatural resource economicsAgricultural economicsBusinessEconomicsEnvironmental scienceEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper evaluates whether the First Nations Forestry Program (FNFP), a contribution program for Indigenous Peoples in Canada, had a statistically measurable effect on the well-being of participating reserves’ inhabitants. Funding data from 1,078 projects was paired with reserve inhabitant profiles from two Statistics Canada censuses. Multiple regression models were then used to test for the statistical significance of project-funding treatments. The results suggest that from 2006 to 2010, the FNFP significantly affected the after-tax incomes of reserve inhabitants who had worked in forestry, as well as a lesser effect on the after-tax incomes of reserve families.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.949
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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