Bibliographic record
Abstract
High among the purposes of entrenching Aboriginal and treaty rights in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 is to promote reconciliation. Recently, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada has emphasized the importance of reconciliation between Canada and Aboriginal people. Yet, in section 35 jurisprudence what the Court has been reconciling is the pre-existence of Aboriginal people occupying the land with Crown sovereignty. This is less than reconciling a broader relationship. It is a fundamentally flawed premise, which ultimately results in the reproduction of a colonial order and hierarchical relationship between peoples. How the n, do we achieve reconciliation between Canada and Aboriginal people? We need a conception of reconciliation founded on recognition of the “equality of all peoples”, which in turn necessitates recognition of the illegitimacy of the Crown’s claims to having acquired ownership of and sovereignty over lands occupied by Aboriginal peoples through unilateral Crown assertion. Drawing on the One Dish agreement of the Anishinabe and Haudenosaunee as an example of how culturally different relationships can be successfully reconciled, the author argues for reconceptualization of reconciliation built on principles of equality, sharing, honour, trust, consultation, restraint and maintenance.
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 | 0.059 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.084 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.025 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.021 | 0.025 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".