Bibliographic record
Abstract
Relying on an Indigenous methodology and the methods of a literature analysis , personal experience , and critical introspection this article addresses Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada’s 1985 unstated paternity policy in regard to the Indian status provisions of the Indian Act. Through Canada’s unstated paternity policy, with its inherent assumption where the Registrar of Aboriginal Affairs interprets all applicants’ birth certificates that lack a father’s signature as being a non-Indian man, many Indigenous women and their children continue to be denied the right to live free from sex discrimination. Disturbingly, this unstated paternity policy applies in situations of sexual violence such as incest , rape, gang rape, sexual slavery, and prostitution where young mothers of Indigenous Nations are particularly vulnerable. Thus, despite Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the two remedial legislations that took place in 1985 and 2011 purportedly to eliminate the sex discrimination in the Indian Act, in Canada’s continued need to eliminate treaty responsibilities to Indigenous nations, the nation state is directly targeting Indigenous babies. While policy remedies are discussed, the author also argues that despite the decades of advocacy and litigation work by Indigenous women , Canada has manipulated the remedial legislative process as an opportunity to create new forms of sex discrimination rather than eliminate it. In this way Canada acts in bad faith and in a way that is counter to the Charter .
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".