Missing and Murdered Aboriginal Women in Canada: Learning from the Missing Women Commission of Inquiry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Missing and Murdered Aboriginal Women in Canada: Learning from the Missing Women Commission of Inquiry\nTORONTO, November 29, 2012 – Amidst growing calls for a national inquiry into missing and murdered Aboriginal women in Canada, York University’s Osgoode Hall Law School will be hosting a discussion on what form such an inquiry should take with David Eby and Robyn Gervais on Monday, December 3, 2012. Eby and Gervais will offer insight based on their experiences with the Missing Women Commission of Inquiry (MWCI).\nThe Province of British Columbia convened the MWCI in 2010 to investigate police conduct in response to the disappearance of women from Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside. The majority of these women were Aboriginal and later found to be the victims of serial killer Robert Pickton. The inquiry’s final report is due to be released on November 30, 2012.\nEby is the Executive Director of the BC Civil Liberties Association, an organization that was initially granted standing to participate in the inquiry but withdrew after the state failed to provide legal funding for Aboriginal, women and other community groups to participate.\nGervais was the Independent Counsel for Aboriginal Interests during the Inquiry, before resigning due to the indifference and bias she perceived from the Commission.\nEby and Gervais will offer critical insight into the controversy surrounding the MWCI and comment on lessons that may be used to craft a meaningful process to address the systemic discrimination and violence that Aboriginal women continue to face.\nAll members of the community and media are invited to attend the talk, which is being presented as part of the student-run Osgoode Hall Distinguished Speakers’ Series.\nEVENT DETAILS\nWHAT: “Missing and Murdered Aboriginal Women in Canada: Learning from the Missing Women Commission of Inquiry”\nWHEN: Monday, December 3, 2012, 1:00 - 2:30 p.m.\nWHERE: Room 1003 \nOsgoode Hall Law School, York University, 4700 Keele Street, Toronto, M3J 1P3\n-30-\nFor further information, please contact:\nVirginia Corner\nCommunications Manager\nOsgoode Hall Law School of York University\n416-736-5820\nvcorner@osgoode.yorku.ca
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 | 0.012 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.124 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.020 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.029 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".