MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1492178389 · doi:10.60082/2563-8505.1057

Old and Difficult Grievances: Examining the Relationship Between the Métis and the Crown

2004· article· en· W1492178389 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jean Teillet

Bibliographic record

VenueSupreme Court law review · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMulticultural Socio-Legal Studies
Canadian institutionsVancouver Biotech (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupreme courtConstitutionLawCrown (dentistry)HappeningContext (archaeology)Political scienceSociologyAccommodationHistoryPsychologyPerformance artMedicineArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The inclusion of section 35 in the Constitution Act, 1982 was intended to address the old and difficult grievances of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada. In particular, it was meant to fundamentally change the relationship between Aboriginal peoples and the Crown. Since 1982, the Supreme Court of Canada has, in a series of more than 35 cases, set out the principles governing the relationship between the Aboriginal peoples of Canada and the Crown. In R. v. Powley, the Court applied those principles to the Métis. The paper examines the historical relationship between the Crown and the Métis and in particular looks to what has been happening post-Powley. Historically, the difficulty has always been that the Crown deals with the Métis as individuals and has refused to deal with the m as a people. In the contemporary context the issue is how the Crown is to implement a relationship with a people it has long denied and no longer knows. The paper looks to the issues of consultation and accommodation and how these can be carried out for the Métis. The conclusion of this paper is that despite 1982, more than 20 years of Supreme Court of Canada rulings and Powley, the Crown continues to ignore Métis collectives with the result that there is little to no progress in the reconciliation of the old and difficult grievances of the Métis.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.904
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.097
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSupreme Court law reviewSame topicMulticultural Socio-Legal StudiesFrench-language works237,207