From Customary Law to Oral Traditions: Discursive Formation of Plural Legalisms in Northern British Columbia, 1857-1993
Bibliographic record
Abstract
September 1993, Prince George Citizen ran byline Native court ruling seen as precedent. Placed as an item of local news, article reported on a recent court case involving a First Nations family of central British Columbia Interior. In a precedent setting Aboriginal rights decision, it began, the BC Court of Appeal ruled this week that grandparents of a Stellaquo Indian chief who died five years ago legally qualify as his 'dependent parents/ The decision recognizes cultural background of Carrier people (also known as Dakelh or Yinka Dene), and effective adoption of late Chief Ernest Casimel by his grandparents. Explaining nature of Aboriginal rights that courts are bound to recognize, judges offered, inter alia, reasoning that the particular rights must be examined in each case to determine scope and content of specific rights in Aboriginal society. The casual reader might surmise that, indeed, this legal judgment marks a new era in Aboriginal/non-Aboriginal legal relations and symbolizes twentieth-century advances in cross-cultural relations. This reader might also be startled at implication that, seemingly for first time, different but parallel legal orders would be operating across country. Nothing, however, could be further from truth: with this legal decision Aboriginal peoples regained rights and powers that they had exercised in nineteenth century. The BC Court of Appeal had taken its precedent from Canadian case law, particularly from a Quebec Superior Court judgment from 9 July 1867, which it
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.038 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".