Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cultural Identity and Rebuilding of Indigenous Nations in Canada First Nations are geographically widely dispersed in Canada. Those who occupy specific territories – generally called “Indianʼs reserves” – constitute small populations. 60 % of these reserves have less than 500 habitants; only 6,5 % are occupied by more than 2 000 persons. How to conciliate “cultural security”, political self-determination and decolonization of indigenous peoples of Canada? To answer that question, we will first present the highlights of the Royal Commission on aboriginal peoples (RCAP) that was established after the 1990 Oka Crisis. We will then examine one of its key recommendations concerning the establishment of “modern polities”, that is the grouping of indigenous communities into modern nations along cultural and linguistic lines in order to significantly increase their political weight and thus ensure their cultural security on the long-run. However, it should be born in mind that such “modern” political structures designed to strengthen and sustain aboriginal cultures conflict with the indigenous traditional culture of non-delegation of power. Third and last, we will look how First Nations respond to such a dilemma and how challenging the restructuration of about 1 000 communities into 80 nations is for the Canadian state.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".