The Crown's Duty to Consult Aboriginal Peoples: Towards an Understanding of the Source, Purpose, and Limits of the Duty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While the duty to consult fulfils a critically important role in defining, guiding, and developing the interrelationship of the Crown and Aboriginal peoples, the role of the duty to consult, properly understood, is but one of several important elements in the overall scheme of satisfying the Crown’s constitutional duties to Canada’s Aboriginal peoples. The Crown’s duty to consult and, if necessary, accommodate is both important and useful; however, this duty to consult should not be stretched in an attempt to fulfil other roles or serve other purposes. The Crown’s duty to consult coexists with the other elements of the scheme, including the Crown’s fiduciary obligations, treaty obligations, and the obligation to justify infringements of Aboriginal rights and title. This distinction in approach between the duty to consult and substantive Aboriginal rights is more understandable when one clearly distinguishes between the purpose of and the limitations on the Crown’s duty to consult and those of the other elements of the Crown’s obligations to satisfy its constitutional duties to Canada’s Aboriginal peoples.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".