Bibliographic record
Abstract
The recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Tsilhqot’in Nation is a major milestone in the reconciliation of Indigenous and non-Indigenous Canadians. In declaring Aboriginal title for the plaintiffs, the Court is reaffirming its commitment to take the rights of Aboriginal people in Canada seriously. This paper contextualizes this milestone in a broader history of the recognition of Indigenous land rights by the colonial legal system, and concludes that at least in Canada’s case, the systematic denial of those rights is a more recent phenomenon that departs from broader historical practices. The paper also argues that this declaration of Aboriginal title is only one step forward in a much longer journey toward reconciliation. It argues that a more robust reconciliation cannot take place without a more serious engagement of the Canadian legal system with Indigenous legal orders. an example from laws on burial sites is considered, and Canadian law’s treatment of Indigenous legal orders is compared with the common law’s co-existence with ecclesiastical law in England. The paper suggests that the English example provides useful guidance for the development of Canadian law.
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 | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.053 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".