Projections of the Aboriginal Populations: Total population with Aboriginal identity by age group: 2001 to 2017 - Total residence [Canada] [Excel]
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The provide detailed statistical tables for 18 scenarios by single year of the projection period (2001 to 2017). For each of the scenarios, data are available for persons who identify with each of the following three groups: the North American Indian population, the Métis or the Inuit. All three groups were projected separately for each of the ten provinces and three territories. However, the subprovincial and subterritorial level shown for the three groups varies as it depends on the groups' size. For the North American Indians, future numbers were calculated for the urban parts of all census metropolitan areas (CMAs), urban areas outside CMAs, rural areas and reserves. For the Métis, places of residence were grouped into urban parts of CMAs, urban areas outside CMAs and rural areas, which also include reserves. Because of their relatively small size, the Inuit population was projected separately for urban and rural locations only. This information is further broken down by age and sex. The 18 scenarios, as well as scenario-specific assumptions on the future trend in fertility and internal migration, are presented in the table below. In addition to these two components of population growth, all scenarios assumed declining mortality and negligible importance of international migration to the change of the size of three Aboriginal groups. The statistical tables of this CD-ROM are organized into three sections: Aboriginal groups - The projected population by Aboriginal group, type of residence, province/territory and sex for the 18 scenarios by single year from 2001 to 2017; Age and sex - The projected population by Aboriginal group, type of residence, age group and sex for the 18 scenarios by single year from 2001 to 2017; and Province/territory - The projected total Aboriginal population by province/territory, age group, sex and type of residence for the 18 scenarios for 2001 and 2017. The statistical tables are supplementary to the publication Projections of the Aboriginal populations, Canada, provinces and territories: 2001 to 2017 (catalogue no. 91-547).
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 0.005 |
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".