Moving tenuously toward lasting self-government for First Nations: Understanding differences with respect to implementing accountability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the late 1960s, the Government of Canada has made various attempts at repairing its historically strained relationship with First Nations. In one of the federal government's most recent initiatives, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP) recommended a formal approach to recognizing Aboriginal self-government including the construction of a First Nations parliament that would be responsible for setting Aboriginal policy. The idea was not fully accepted, and only limited progress has been made toward this end. In practice, major improvement in First Nation-government relations continues to be stalled in large part by the persistent dominance of the federal government's administrative regime as established by the Indian Act and central agency policies related to funding and governance. Few detailed examinations of federal public administrative arrangements have been undertaken to gauge their impact on First Nations governance. One major obstacle that is standing in the way of building acceptable and tenable self-government arrangements for First Nations is the construction of effective policy and program accountability relationships and processes. The new public management (NPM), which is now the dominant administrative philosophy of the federal government, interprets accountability as focussing on results according to federal government performance indicators. It assumes that the focus on results and the shifting of government program management to First Nations will improve the relationship thereby making the transition to self-government easier. However, First Nations program management regimes must still abide by federal and provincial program standards and priorities which may differ from those that would be preferred locally. The thesis concludes that the NPM has done little to improve overall First Nation-government relations and in fact may be setting back relations in ways not found under previous traditional public administrative arrangements. It tests these conclusions by examining the experiences of three First Nation communities under different federally-imposed or negotiated funding arrangements: the Enoch Cree First Nation (Alberta), Whitecap Dakota-Sioux First Nation (Saskatchewan) and the Nisga'a Lisims Government (British Columbia). The thesis finds that even under conditions of negotiated self-government, accountability for program management rests resolutely with the federal government thereby placing into question the willingness of the federal government to embrace its 1995 commitment for respecting the inherent right of self-government.
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 | 0.030 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.060 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".