Governmentality and Aboriginal Social Policy in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A landmark legal precedent was set on June 26, 2014 at the Supreme Court of Canada. The decision to uphold the Tsilhqot’in’s right to their traditional territory will have far reaching consequences for the Tsilhqot’in, and presents an important opportunity for other non-treaty First Nations. However, while the decision represents significant change at the legal level, at the level of public discourse we continue to hear the same story about protecting the economy and providing “certainty” for economic interests. Moreover, an essentializing discourse around Aboriginal people and issues has disadvantaged First Nations’ interests, while reinforcing the tension between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Canada. This presentation will begin with a brief overview of the ways in which Canada’s colonial history precipitated the rise of poverty among First Nations communities. It will then explore how the rise of neoliberal government policy has marginalized Aboriginal people in BC by prioritizing the interests of the market and “the taxpayer”, and by engaging in what Suzan Ilcan has called a responsibilizing ethos which privatizes responsibility for human wellbeing. Ultimately, the greatest challenge remaining in reconciling governmental and Aboriginal interests, I argue, is coming to view Aboriginal interests as Canadian interests.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.035 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".