Bibliographic record
Abstract
There were two Aboriginal law judgments released by the Supreme Court during the 2008-2009 term. The first, R. v. Kapp, involved a program under which Aboriginal organizations were issued licences to engage in commercial fishing during periods which were closed to other fishers. This program was challenged as violating the equality provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the Court considered whether the program was protected under section 15(2) or section 25 of the Charter. In its reasons, the Court unanimously cast off the approach to equality claims that had been developed based upon Law v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), and instead refreshed the approach which had been proposed in Law Society of British Columbia v. Andrews. The Court also interpreted section 15(2) as a provision that can stand alone, and ground a complete defence to equality-based claims against ameliorative programs. Only Bastarache J. substantively considered the section 25 argument, and in doing so provided the first full interpretation of this provision by this Court. The second judgment, Ermineskin Indian Band and Nation v. Canada, also required the Court to address questions about equality rights. However, the case was centrally about determining the nature of the duties the Crown has when it holds oil and gas royalties in trust for First Nations. The Court had to consider the interplay of several statutes, and their impact on common law fiduciary and trust obligations. In their unanimous reasons, the Court found that in some circumstances the Crown may have the common law obligations of a trustee to a First Nation, but that these obligations, as well as the duty to avoid conflicts of interest, can be narrowed or exonerated by legislation.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".