Bibliographic record
Abstract
In April 2013, the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) confirmed in Daniels 1 that Mtis and non-status Indians are included in federal constitutional jurisdiction for "Indians and lands reserved for Indians" under s. 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867. 2 The decision is a victory for non-status Indians and Mtis people, because the federal government can no longer use "lack of jurisdiction" alone to deny them access to federal programs and services available to status Indians, or avoid negotiating claims derived from loss or denial of federal Indian status, Mtis Aboriginal rights, or socioeconomic needs. However, the decision does not say that Mtis and non-status Indians have the same legal rights as other Aboriginal people under federal jurisdiction, nor does it compel the federal government to enact legislation for their benefit or negotiate land or other unfulfilled constitutional obligations. These obligations have to be determined on a case-by-case basis for non-status Indians because the reasons for excluding individuals or groups from status and federal programs are "complex, far ranging and often unrelated to one another. " 3 Nevertheless, read together with other cases on Mtis constitutional rights, practical implications flowing from Daniels may include federal constitutional obligations to: (1) participate in negotiation of claims arising from credibly asserted Mtis Aboriginal rights or breaches of constitutional or other historical solemn promises to Mtis aimed at reconciling "Mtis Aboriginal interests . . . with the assertion of Crown sovereignty"; 4 and (2) extend some programs and services to them, particularly those aimed at reconciliation, such as comprehensive treaty negotiation processes.
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 | 0.016 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.023 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".