The Children Parliament Left Behind: Examining the Inequity of Funding in <i>An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families (the Act) came into force in January of 2020, containing many innovative provisions aimed at affirming the jurisdiction of Indigenous peoples and providing services for Indigenous families. Ground- breaking provisions within the Act create a positive obligation on the government to provide services to Indigenous children who otherwise would have been apprehended due to their socioeconomic status. However, the Act lacks a concrete funding provision. This legislative comment conducts an exercise in statutory interpretation to conclude that the current omission of a funding provision within the legislation is at odds with the nature, purposes, and context of the legislation. The Act leaves a gap in funding (through no fault of the child’s community) for children living in communities that have assumed jurisdiction over their own child and family services without having signed a coordination agreement, as well as for children in communities that have not assumed jurisdiction. This gap results in an inequitable funding distribution that helps some children out of poverty while leaving others behind, based on characteristics entirely out of the child’s control. Knowledge of this dangerous gap is crucial in compelling legal actors to urgently push for legal solutions, so that no child is denied the protections offered in sections 15 and 15.1 of the Act.
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 | 0.011 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".