Transforming Constitutionalism: Indigenous-White Relations in Canada, 1983-1987
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this dissertation I examine whether the First Ministers' Coferences (FMCs) and political accords negotiated at these meetings from 1983-1987 assisted in transforming Canadian constitutionalism. During the period 1983-1987, four FMCs were held to consider Aboriginal peoples' place in a new Constitutional order. These meetings renegotiated the relationship between indigenous and non-indigenous peoples in Canada by reconsidering some of the assumptions permeating Canadian constitutionalism. The FMCs involved direct dialogues betwen heads of federal government, provincial governments and the four main Aboriginal organisations. Political accords were used in these FMCs to direct the dialogues and to identify when mutually acceptable constitutional associations had been achieved. Tully's reconceptualisation of constitutionalism will be used to evaluate the extent to which Canadian constitutionalism was transformed. He argues that constitutionalism is an activity or process of ongoing dialogues between diverse cultures. He further suggests that three conventions operate to enable these intercultural dialogues to recognise and accommodate cultural diversity. These conventions are mutual recognition, consent and cultural continuity. In order to identify whether constitutionalism was transformed, I consider whether the relationship between indigenous and non-indigenous peoples was altered to further recognise and accommodate cultural diversity. This will be demonstrated by examining whether Tully's three conventions were adopted and advanced during the FMCs between 1983-1987. I conclude that the FMCs and the negotiation around political accords adopted and promoted Tully's three conventions, thereby further recognising and accommodating indigenous Canadians and thus transforming Canadian constitutionalism.
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 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.052 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".