Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aboriginal peoples in Canada continue to exercise moral, political and legal agency in their interactions with others, despite centuries of repression. In earlier times the federal government tried to undermine these freedoms by placing Indian agents in supervisory roles over their communities. Indian peoples' active participation in resisting these colonial impositions has encouraged some positive changes within their communities. There have also been some setbacks. Aboriginal decisions have also affected the wider world around them, for good and ill, as exemplified by certain Supreme Court of Canada decisions. This article suggests that the power of aboriginal choice in decisionmaking should be more explicitly recognized and affirmed. This would enable aboriginal peoples to further expand agency's sphere, and thus take greater control of their individual lives, their community's governance and the Canadian state. This message is presented in accordance with the author's understanding of Anishinabek teaching methodologies, and concludes by offering a few cautions about how choice is exercised and its potential for detrimentally affecting aboriginal peoples and others, if such choice is improperly exercised. This article's Anishinabek communication style leaves the reader with the task of interpreting the message and drawing their own conclusions about the specific challenges faced by aboriginal peoples and others when making choices in the context of the continuing colonization in Canada. As such, the article attempts to engage the reader's agency in a manner consistent with the message underlying the work as a whole.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.040 | 0.048 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| 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".