Bibliographic record
Abstract
This introductory chapter first lays out the questions that the book seeks to address. What is responsible for the appalling conditions of North American Indigenous Peoples, where they are in abject poverty and die at excessively high rates due to alcoholism, drug consumption, and suicide? How and why have the particular historical events of the past few centuries led to the current predicament? How can economics contribute to an understanding of the grave conditions of North American Indigenous Peoples? Can we substantiate the analysis of Indigenous communities with rigorous theorizing in a manner that is consistent with mainstream economics? What policy measures would economic analysis suggest in order to ameliorate the serious problems leading to Indigenous “Deaths of Despair”? The point of departure of this book is the role of the erosion of Indigenous cultures. The same approach also sheds light on how many Indigenous communities have exhibited resilience or survivance. The tendency in economics has been to apply routine off-the-shelf frameworks based on assumptions that are not relevant to Indigenous communities. The chapter explains that this book intends to begin remedying that by using standard mainstream economics but with assumptions that are based on the lived experience of Indigenous Peoples. As a result, the theory offered provides explanations for many empirical findings regarding Indigenous Peoples of North America. Apart from its explanatory power, this work suggests some policy measures that are grounded in relevant economic theory and echo the wisdom of Indigenous elders and scholars.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.001 |
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".