"UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples": Canadian Government Positions Incompatible with Genuine Reconciliation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
step towards addressing the persistent human rights violations against Indigenous peoples worldwide. It is the most comprehensive universal international human rights instrument explicitly addressing the rights of Indigenous peoples. The Declaration provides a principled and normative legal framework for achieving reconciliation between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples around the world. In 2006, the newly-elected Conservative government of Canada opposed the Declaration at home and abroad, motivated by ideology rather than justice and international law. As a minority government, it has undemocratically ignored a Motion adopted by Parliament — calling for the Parliament and government of Canada to fully implement the standards in the Declaration. This article underlines the importance of adopting a human rights-based ap-proach. It highlights the significance of the Declaration in achieving reconciliation with Indigenous peoples in Canada. A central conclusion of this article is that the positions of the Canadian government are untenable and incompatible with consti-tutional and international obligations. Its adherence to unprincipled positions is undermining the international human rights system. * An earlier version of this article was originally prepared for the publication Aboriginal
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".