“What do we want and how do we get there” - A comparative review of First Nations Comprehensive Community Plans in British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
First Nations are important regional development actors, and yet, their development ambitions and goals have often been ignored or poorly understood by settler governments. Since 2004, the federal government has supported First Nations band governments and Tribal Councils to develop and implement their own community plans. The Comprehensive Community Planning process has been completed by 130 communities in British Columbia (approximately 66% out of total First Nations). These plans outline a community’s strengths/assets, opportunities, goals, and ambitions for the future across eight thematic areas that are important for community development and well-being. While this exercise is meant to strengthen community governance, it is a valuable source of information to better understand First Nations’ interests and priorities. To date, there has been no comparative analysis of First Nations Comprehensive Community Plans. This study employs comparative content analysis of all publicly available CCPs in British Columbia (n=70) in order to understand communities’ development ambitions across the eight main thematic areas. In doing so, it provides a broad overview of community priorities, differentiating by community type (urban, semi-urban, rural, and remote). Understanding community development objectives is fundamental to more effective regional development and multi-level government relations.
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 | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.025 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".