Bibliographic record
Abstract
Questions of data governance occur in all contexts. Arguably, they become especially pressing for data concerning Indigenous people. Long-standing colonial relationships, experiences of vulnerability to decision-makers, claims of jurisdiction, and concerns about collective privacy become significant in considering how and by whom data concerning Indigenous people should be governed. Also significant is the on going need on the part of governments to access and use such data to plan, monitor, and account for programs involving Indigenous people. This exploratory policy article seeks to inform efforts to improve the governance of data between governments and Indigenous organizations and communities – especially the federal government and First Nations in Canada. It describes a spectrum of models arising from the growing literature on data governance in the corporate and public sectors as well as overarching approaches articulated by Indigenous organizations. After outlining certain practical considerations in negotiating data sharing agreements, the article presents a selection of promising initiatives in indigenous data governance undertaken in Canada, the United States, and Australia.
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 | 0.063 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.053 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.025 | 0.027 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".