Corporate Aboriginal alliances: a case study of the Osoyoos Indian band
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Canada and elsewhere around the world Indigenous Peoples are struggling to rebuild their ‘nations’ and improve the socio-economic circumstances of their people. Many see economic development as the key to success. This is certainly true for the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada (the First Nations, Metis and Inuit). Through entrepreneurship and business development they believe they can attain their economic and ‘nation-building’ objectives. Many Aboriginal groups in Canada believe they can achieve these purposes through participation in the global economy and have adopted processes that reflect this belief. They recognize the success of this approach depends on the long-term profitability of the businesses they create. In order to improve the viability of their businesses, Aboriginal people are forming partnerships of all types among themselves and with non-Aboriginal enterprises. Based of regulation theory, Anderson with others has developed a theoretical perspective on Indigenous development in the “new flexible economy”. In order to test the validity of the theoretical model and especially to explore the way that the interplay between the state, supranational bodies, the civil sector, corporations, and community gives rise particular modes of development, we are doing a series of case studies based on the approach of Yin (2004). We have developed the case study protocol based on the theoretical model and are testing it by doing this initial case study on the Osoyoos First Nation. However, the ultimate quest is for an understanding of the conditions that need to be present for a successful entrepreneurial venture.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".