MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7008704998

Defining People Differently: Claiming Space for Aboriginal Diversities in Contemporary Canada

2000· article· en· W7008704998 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Huddersfield Repository (University of Huddersfield) · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousTerminologySection (typography)Space (punctuation)Relation (database)CommissionIdentity (music)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This essay discusses some of the discursive practices associated with aspects of political, socio-economic and cultural relations between Canada’s First Nations and the larger society over the past decade. Attention is drawn to discourses of reconciliation and healing, life-skills and survival economics and cultural revival prevalent during the 1990s, both in and away from the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. Section Two identifies the key themes that run through this multi-disciplinary collection of writings by Aboriginal and also non-Aboriginal writers based in and outside Canada. Recurring links between aspects of changing policies, languages and identities are identified. Drawing upon perspectives from linguistics, law, sociology and popular culture, Section Two highlights elements of continuity and change within contemporary Aboriginal experience, namely the emergence of Aboriginal rock music, demographic shift and urbanising lifestyles, language practice and policy, culturally appropriate curriculum design and the use of official terminology used in relation to Canada’s indigenous peoples.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.122
Threshold uncertainty score0.887

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0900.059
Scholarly communication0.0180.005
Open science0.0030.017
Research integrity0.0030.006
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.207 · 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
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of Huddersfield Repository (University of Huddersfield)Same topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207