Adding Insult to Injury: Her Majesty's Loyal Anthropologist
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en land claims case cost the Canadian tax-payers $23 million, the bulk of which was spent by the Crown with the remainder being allocated to the Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en. Like the many other large sums from the public purse expended on Aboriginal matters—and quoted with tiresome frequency and extraneous alarm by the media — litde if any of this money found its way into the coffers of Aboriginal administrative bodies, and much less into the pockets of individual Aboriginal people. Almost all returned to the government through court costs, and much less ended up in the pockets of individual non-Aboriginal functionaries, lawyers, and expert witnesses. Government money whirls around Aboriginal people. It's everywhere and nowhere, like a ghostly helicopter always hovering overhead just beyond reach. People in the communities can hear it. They can smell it. Sometimes they even think they have caught a glimpse of it. The phantom chopper drops the odd box of tokens, but the beast with its golden cargo rarely lands in the villages. Much has already been written about the case of Delgamuukw v. B.C., and much more will be written. Some critics have argued that in seeking a declaration of Aboriginal title and jurisdiction the lawyers asked the court for too much (Slattery, 1991). Others claim that in not seeking an acknowledgement of absolute sovereignty, the lawyers asked for too little (Clark, 1990). Some have argued that the scholarly material presented by the expert witnesses who testified on behalf of the Gitksan and Wet'su-wet'en was so dense that it overwhelmed Chief Justice Allan McEachern (Tennant, 1991). Others claim that Justice McEachern's Reasons for Judgment indicate that his appreciation of scholarship was so under-whelming as to make this criticism inconsequential ( Culhane, 1992). These are important and complex questions, and the debates that Delgamuukw v. B.C. has initiated will no doubt rage for quite some time in a variety of forums. I will address only one facet of these proceedings: the expert anthropological evidence presented by the plaintiffs as com-
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.020 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".