THE LONDON JOURNAL OF CANADIAN STUDIES 2000/2001 VOLUME 16 DEFINING PEOPLE DIFFERENTLY: CLAIMING SPACE FOR ABORIGINAL DIVERSITIES IN
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.030 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.036 | 0.003 |
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".