Contractual and Covenantal Conceptions of Modern Treaty Interpretation
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Aboriginal rights discourse of recent decades has sought to foster negotiation processes and a new wave of treaty-making. Two decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada, Moses and Little Salmon, speak directly to principles of interpretation applicable to modern treaties with Aboriginal communities that differ from those applicable to historical treaties. This paper seeks to show the commonalities on this issue between the positions of the different judgments in the two cases. It also draws out the contract-oriented interpretation methods to which the judges adhere, arguing that some of these methods are not necessarily wrong in principle but should preferably be couched within a different “covenantal” conception of modern treaty interpretation. The paper argues that the contract-oriented discourse present in these first Supreme Court of Canada pronouncements on modern treaty interpretation may risk unforeseen consequences, but these judgments at this point have not yet foreclosed the somewhat reoriented conception of modern treaties as covenants rather than mere contracts.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it