Bibliographic record
Abstract
Résumé Cet article analyse la relation fiduciaire, ou de trust, créée entre les membres d'un conseil de bande de Premières Nations et ceux de la bande. La discussion porte notamment sur le fait qu'en tant que forme gouvernementale locale, le conseil de bande est analogue à un conseil municipal, dans sa composition et son mode de fonctionnement. La nature et la portée respectives de cette relation fiduciaire sont étudiées en détail, tant pour le conseil de bande que le conseil municipal. Le concept de relation fiduciaire est important dans la mesure où le modèle municipal de gouvernement autonome semble être la voie choisie par les peuples des Premières Nations pour atteindre l'autonomie. L'auteur identifie toutefois des manquements statutaires d'une telle forme de gouvernement autonome qui n'arrive pas à reconnaître ni à tenir compte de cette relation fiduciaire, et qui compromettraient l'établissement d'un gouvernement autochtone autonome fonctionnel.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".