Aboriginal Public Servants: Leadership in the British Columbia Public Service
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis provides preliminary, qualitative research that explores whether there is a common understanding of Aboriginal public servant leadership within the British Columbia (BC) Public Service. An interpretive, grounded theory approach underpinned by attention to Indigenous methodologies was used in this thesis. Research was conducted using semi-structured interviews with 22 self-identified Aboriginal peoples within the BC Public Service. The results identify properties of three analytical perspectives of leadership that interact in the context of Aboriginal public servants in British Columbia: (1) individual; (2) Indigenous, traditional or family setting; and (3) bureaucracy/public service. A linking theme across these analytical perspectives, “it’s personal not individual”, is proposed that influences an approach that interviewed Aboriginal public servants use in their professional positions and in their daily life. This study concludes that although there is not one specific understanding of leadership among Aboriginal public servants, their personal commitment to improving the well-being of their peoples may be the basis for their leadership work to facilitate and build bridges of understanding between communities and government. In addition, there is a call to non-indigenous public servants to consider their own leadership and share responsibility for bridge building alongside their Aboriginal colleagues.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".