‘At the centre of it all are the children’: Aboriginal Childhoods and the National Film Board
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Given the overall young age of Canada's Aboriginal population, it is unsurprising that so much concern focuses upon trying to find ways to meet the diverse and complex present and future needs of children more appropriately than in the past. Over ten years after the grim findings of No Quiet Place (1982) in which child welfare practice was likened to 'the road to hell […] paved with good intentions and the child welfare system was the paving contractor', the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (1996) highlighted the continuing challenges faced by Aboriginal children in rural and urban settings. Over the same period, the National Film Board of Canada (NFB), has produced material in both documentary and fictional form on diverse aspects of Aboriginal childhood experience. This presentation uses NFB material to consider how filmic versions of Aboriginal children's experiences are constructed and presented to their viewers. Imagery, sound, narrative themes and filming offer contrasting perspectives and prompt questions about the production, consumption and interpretation of film material on children where opportunities to show and be seen on screen remain unequally distributed through society - even for the young!
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".