Indigenous Policy Conference Summary Report: Beyond Reconciliation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The School of Public Policy (SPP) at the University of Calgary organized a conference to announce the establishment of its Indigenous Policy program and to share knowledge and stories about policy issues critical to Indigenous Peoples in Canada. The conference, titled “Beyond Reconciliation,” was held at the University of Calgary Downtown Campus on Nov. 21, 2016 and was attended by 73 participants. This included Indigenous elders, chiefs and leaders, and members of Indigenous organizations, including a women’s group. Also included were members of universities and academic institutions, including students; industry representatives from the oil and gas, pipeline, forestry, electricity, legal and financial sectors; as well as representatives from government and regulatory agencies. The purpose of the conference was established with the following abstract, which was circulated to speakers and participants: The School of Public Policy is establishing a new Indigenous Policy program in order to produce widely disseminated research and engage in outreach that covers an array of policy areas, such as health, education, self-government, and natural resource development. The program will directly engage Indigenous communities in the search for original, long-term, and evidence-based solutions, as part of an effort to improve our national capacity in problem-solving and policy development. The conference will provide a platform to launch the program, showcasing preliminary research and providing a venue for discussion of policy solutions. The conference included three moderated panel sessions and a keynote speaker.1 The first panel considered business and entrepreneurship in Indigenous communities; the second panel showcased case studies that are examining the experiences of Indigenous communities with natural resource development projects, and particularly their experiences with consultation and engagement. The final panel focused on ways of improving the consultation and engagement process with Indigenous communities. This report summarizes both the presentations and the major themes explored at the conference. The purpose is to capture the ideas and debates emerging from the conference, and provide an overview of the day for interested policy-makers and the public. The report begins with an outline of the agenda, before summarizing each of the panel sessions and the keynote speaker’s presentation. The concluding section provides a discussion of the key themes emerging from the conference and next steps for policy-makers and researchers. Three students enrolled in the SPP’s Master of Public Policy program took detailed notes throughout the day. The authors thank them for their thoroughness. The student notes and the authors’ notes were used to inform this report.
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 | 0.020 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.078 | 0.022 |
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".