A Paper Prepared for: First Nations First Thoughts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pressure for Canadian resources is, and has been, a constant force driving not only national development but also indigenous development. However, if we are to advance our understanding of First Nations development, or “self-determination”, it is important to understand the cultural implications of resource extraction and political economy for First Nations. The question this paper asks is this: through what relationships and mechanisms is First Nations development been facilitated and organized? Answers to this question will only be found by surveying different models of First Nations development. Primarily a rethinking of the significance of development, this paper draws loosely on preliminary research conducted through community visits and/or interviews across northern Canada.1 It argues that in many instances development is viewed as necessary because First Nations culture has been significantly hollowed out over the course of Canadian history. Although overwhelmed by Western institutions and materialism, to ensure their continued cultural survival many First Nations now embrace development as a tool which can be used to assist them in the challenge of balancing culture and capitalism. 1 This paper represents a first effort to unpack many of the ideas that emerged during the course of field research that has occurred over the past seven years. It draws largely upon field research which originated during my summer of employment with the Mikisew Cree
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.151 | 0.022 |
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".