The Indian Association of Alberta's 1970 Red paper published as a response to the Canadian Federal Government's proposed 1969 White paper on Indian policy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis explores the discourse on treaties and “self-sufficiency” between the 1969 Canadian federal government’s White Paper and the 1970 Indian Association of Alberta’s Red Paper. The White Paper advocated individual “self-sufficiency,” while the Red Paper emphasized treaties, rather than individualism, as a source of Indian “self-sufficiency.” The thesis examines the Red Paper as a political assertion and resistance to assimilation as proposed by the White Paper and, that the Red Paper regarded historical treaties as important to Indian people in Alberta and beyond. Michele Foucault’s concept of “power/knowledge” and Dale Turner’s critique of Western liberal ideas are used in the thesis to examine the idea of assimilation in the White Paper and used to illuminate the Red Paper’s position that treaties were essential to the “discourse” between the federal government and Indian leadership, such as the IAA, between 1969 and1971.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".