Bibliographic record
Abstract
When the Supreme Court first grasped the nettle of section 35 in the Sparrow case, it held that the constitutional affirmation of Aboriginal rights should be interpreted in the light of the fundamental principle of the honour of the Crown. This principle pointed simultaneously in two different but complementary directions: negotiation and litigation. With respect to the first, the Court noted that the section provided a solid constitutional base for negotiated treaties between Aboriginal peoples and the Crown that would represent a just settlement of their claims. With respect to litigation, the Court held that the section furnished Aboriginal rights with a judicial shield against legislative infringement and limitation, except where the latter could be justified under the “high standard of honourable dealing” demanded of the Crown. In the Haida Nation and Taku River decisions, we witness the emergence of a new constitutional paradigm governing Aboriginal rights. This paradigm recognizes the potential of section 35 as a generative constitutional order — one that mandates the Crown to negotiate with Aboriginal peoples for the recognition of their rights in a contemporary form that balances their needs with the interests of the broader society. Professor Slattery asserts that according to Haida Nation, the section has a dual function. On the one hand, it serves as a basis for the judicial identification and protection of historical Aboriginal rights, through the application of general constitutional principles. On the other hand, it serves as a springboard for negotiations leading to just settlements, in which Aboriginal rights are recognized in a modern form and reconciled with the interests of the larger society. In both cases, the process is informed by the honour 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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".