MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1489398868 · doi:10.21991/c94t1v

“Irreconcilable? The Duty to Consult and Administrative Decision Makers”

2013· article· en· W1489398868 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueConstitutional Forum / Forum constitutionnel · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal principles and applications
Canadian institutionsThompson Rivers University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAssertionDutySovereigntySupreme courtLawPolitical scienceFormative assessmentRelation (database)SociologyHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Haida Nation v British Columbia (Minister of Forests) ushered in a new era in Aboriginal law. In contrast to the emphasis on history in section 35’s first 20 years, the Haida Nation era offered a determinedly forward-looking approach to the reconciliation purposes ascribed to Aboriginal rights by the Supreme Court. Under the Haida Nation paradigm, and the duty to consult and accomodate it imposed on the Crown in relation to pre-proof aboriginal rights claims, reconciliation is a process that “begins with the assertion of sovereignty and continues beyond formal claims resolution. Reconciliation is not a final legal remedy in the usual sense.” Nine years after Haida Nation, the legal parameters and the institutional structures involved in implementing the duty to consult and this new direction remain incomplete and formative.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.908
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.007
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.286 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it