Le point de vue d’une juriste autochtone sur la situation des Amérindiens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
S'inspirant de l'exemple des Micmacs du Nouveau-Brunswick, Me Millie Augustine1 fait le point sur la situation des autochtones dans les pays des Amériques en ce qui concerne le respect de leurs droits. Elle souligne d'abord l'importance pour son peuple d'être éduqué par rapport à ses droits devant le système de justice et relève certaines contradictions qui opposent le système juridique du Canada et les moeurs autochtones traditionnelles. Elle analyse les causes de la tension qui divise les collectivités autochtones et non autochtones et explique quelle incidence ont sur les autochtones les politiques du gouvernement fédéral les concernant, notamment la Loi sur les Indiens. Elle identifie enfin trois défis pour l'école: freiner l'assimilation culturelle des autochtones en s'ouvrant à la différence des moeurs à la source des cultures autochtones et non autochtones; intervenir directement auprès des jeunes qui manifestent des comportements racistes et mettre en lumière la perspective autochtone dans l'enseignement de l'histoire.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".