Bibliographic record
Abstract
Supreme Court Law Review(2006), 34 S.C.L.R. (2d)"truckhouses" to allow the Mi'kmaq to continue their traditional trade formerly conducted with the French, but the Mi'kmaq were now required to trade exclusively with the British at the truckhouses.The pact was mutually beneficial in that the British acquired peace with the Mi'kmaq, while the Mi'kmaq preserved their access to European goods. 2 The operative trade clause in the treaty expresses a straightforward negative covenant of the Mi'kmaq Chiefs not to trade except with the British at the truckhouses.It reads:And I do further engage that we will not traffick, barter or Exchange any Commodities in any manner but with such persons or the managers of such Truck houses as shall be appointed or Established by His Majesty's Governor.... 3 However, the interpretation of this clause has proved anything but straightforward.This brief but mischievous trade clause has now been the subject of three significant rulings from the Supreme Court of Canada.These rulings are reviewed below, as the background for a discussion of the treaty aspects of the Marshall; Bernard decision. Marshall 1The first case in the trilogy is the Supreme Court's 1999 ruling in R. v. Marshall, known as "Marshall 1". 4 In Marshall 1, the Court had to decide whether the trade clause protected the right of the Mi'kmaq peoples to engage in commercial fishing (or fishing for trade) contrary to federal fishing regulations.In a 5-2 decision, Binnie J. for a majority of the Court held that the Mi'kmaq had such a treaty right to "fish for trade".Justice Binnie found that the treaty affirmed "the right of the Mi'kmaq people to continue to provide for their own sustenance by taking the products of their hunting, fishing and other gathering activities and trading for what in 1760 was termed 'necessaries'".5 2 Id., at paras.7-8, per McLachlin C.J. 3Id., at para. 8.
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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".