A tale of two countries: a comparative study of the struggle for indigenous rights and the long road to reconciliation in Australia and Canada.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ongoing debate in Canadian and Australian societies about the meaning of multiculturalism and the associated discussion of belonging, citizenship and national culture cannot be divorced from the consideration of a major social element in both societies: the original inhabitants of the territories prior to their colonization by the European settlers. This group of people, which over the course of the national histories of these two countries was reduced to the status of minority on its own ancestral land , has since the early 1960s demonstrated increased agency by mounting a campaign of political, cultural, economic and social mobilization to reclaim its rights, most notably through the recognition of sovereignty, and to re-negotiate its relationship with the settler majority societies. The outcome of this mobilization is often portrayed in an interesting account that shows Canada to have gone further than Australia in the accommodation of indigenous rights and the righting of the historical injustices towards them. This thesis will be an attempt to reassess the veracity of this portrayal through a comparative study of the struggle for indigenous rights in both countries.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.030 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".