Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper proposes a basic framework for understanding the decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada relating to aboriginal and treaty rights. It argues that the foundations of these rights lie in the common law doctrine of aboriginal rights, which originated in ancient custom generated by historical relations between the Crown and indigenous peoples, as informed by basic principles of justice. This sui generis doctrine is par t of the common law of Canada and operates uniformly across the country, it also provides the context for interpreting section 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982. The doctrine of aboriginal rights has a number of distinct branches. One branch governs treaties between indigenous peoples and the Crown, and determines their basic status, existence, interpretation and effects. Another branch deals with the various types of aboriginal rights, including aboriginal title and the right of self-government. Here, the doctrine distinguishes between generic and specific rights, exclusive and non-exclusive rights, and depletable and non-depletable rights. Still other branches of the doctrine articulate the principles governing the operation of aboriginal customary l aw and the fiduciary role of the Crown.
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 | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.054 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".