“Our hearts are not at rest”: A critical look at the adequacy of Indigenous death investigations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Across Canada, thousands of Indigenous testimonies have reported deficiencies in how police and medico-legal professionals investigate their deaths.The problem, however, is that these individuals are summarily and systematically denied the resources to challenge investigators and there are few cases that have done so successfully.This research establishes a comparative model to examine whether case investigation conduct aligns with standard investigative practice requirements.The qualitative sample includes three Indigenous case studies involving the suspicious deaths of young individuals in Prince Rupert, BC.The results present a central theme of inadequacy across all three cases, primarily in improper evidence collection, limited procedural follow-through, and withheld information.The outcomes of this study suggest a need for (1) future research and (2) professional action to create and uphold effective accountability measures for investigators and a critical look into how colonial powers limit investigative effectiveness for Indigenous deaths.
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 | 0.190 | 0.294 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.052 | 0.100 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".