MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6992970196

Municipal-Indigenous Relations in Ontario:\nInitiatives in Brantford, Hamilton, and Niagara\n

2021· article· en· W6992970196 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueProject Muse (Johns Hopkins University) · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousPopulationInclusion (mineral)Government (linguistics)Public policy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The relationship between local government and urban Indigenous Peoples in Ontario is under-studied, even though over half of Canada’s Indigenous population live in urban centres, one in five of Canada’s Indigenous population live in Ontario, and the Six Nations of the Grand River has the largest reserve population in Canada. Brantford, Hamilton, and Niagara were selected to build on previous research that mapped Municipal-Indigenous relations in seven municipalities across Canada. Studies regarding Municipal-Indigenous relations indicate the degree of inclusion of Indigenous Peoples in policy processes is as unique as each municipality. Some municipalities are urban Indigenous policy innovators with formal mechanisms for Indigenous inclusion in policy processes while others lag. An investigation of three Ontario municipalities is pivotal in partially supporting the finding that larger urban centres with proportionately smaller Indigenous populations are moving toward substantive Indigenous relationship building when compared to smaller municipalities with proportionately higher Indigenous populations. Résumé: Les relations entre les administrations locales et les populations autochtones urbaines de l’Ontario n’ont guère été étudiées, même si plus de la moitié de la population autochtone du Canada vit en ville, qu’une personne autochtone sur cinq habite en Ontario et que les Six Nations de Grand River comptent la plus grande population vivant dans une réserve au Canada. Les villes de Brantford, de Hamilton et de Niagara ont été choisies pour poursuivre les recherches antérieures qui avaient cerné les relations entre les municipalités et les Autochtones dans sept municipalités du Canada. D’après les études sur ce sujet, le degré d’inclusion des Autochtones dans les processus politiques varie selon chaque municipalité. Certaines d’entre elles innovent en matière de politique autochtone urbaine et disposent de mécanismes formels d’inclusion des Autochtones, tandis que d’autres sont à la traîne. Une enquête sur trois municipalités de l’Ontario s’impose pour étayer en partie la conclusion selon laquelle les grands centres urbains comptant une population autochtone proportionnellement faible s’orientent vers l’établissement de solides relations avec les Autochtones comparativement aux petites municipalités ayant une population autochtone proportionnellement élevée.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.448

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0130.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.237 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProject Muse (Johns Hopkins University)→Same topicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights→French-language works237,207→