Communications capacity and resources : the missing weft in the basket of Indigenous nation-building and vibrant communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
First Nations in Canada face many barriers in their journey toward self-determination and community empowerment. One such barrier is that the processes for community decision-making, particularly those decisions that require members to vote, can have a significant impact on the outcomes communities seek in the advancement of community goals—but some First Nations lack the internal capacity for effective communications. Community decision-making processes that aren’t thoughtfully designed fail engage community members to participate in the process and thus fail to achieve community goals. In order to better understand the connection between communications and Indigenous self-determination and community empowerment, as well as factors that contribute to successful community decision-making processes, I designed this study to include intensive interviews with representatives of elected leadership and communications staff from participant First Nation communities. Through a situational analysis of the data collected in this research, I identified issues related to communications faced by First Nations in BC and then generated three sensitizing concepts that provide direction for overcoming those issues from a decolonial perspective to contribute Indigenous knowledge to the topic of community decision-making in First Nations. As a result of the findings of this study, I argue First Nations need dedicated resources to develop communications capacity within the community to achieve goals of self-determination and empowerment of community members.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".