The Mohawks of Kahnawá:ke and the Case for an Aboriginal Right to Gaming under the Canada Constitution Act, 1982
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gaming Law ReviewVol. 10, No. 4 Original PapersThe Mohawks of Kahnawá:ke and the Case for an Aboriginal Right to Gaming under the Canada Constitution Act, 1982Morden C. Lazarus, Edwin D. Monzon, and Richard B. WodnickiMorden C. LazarusSearch for more papers by this author, Edwin D. MonzonSearch for more papers by this author, and Richard B. WodnickiSearch for more papers by this authorPublished Online:25 Aug 2006https://doi.org/10.1089/glr.2006.10.369AboutSectionsPDF/EPUB Permissions & CitationsPermissionsDownload CitationsTrack CitationsAdd to favorites Back To Publication ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmail FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited byManufacturing regional disparity in the pursuit of economic equality: Alberta's First Nations Gaming Policy, 2006-201024 September 2012 | The Canadian Geographer / Le Géographe canadien, Vol. 57, No. 1ANZSOC 23rd Annual Conference, Alice Springs, September, 2010. Aboriginal justice issues – trying for new approaches, while clinging to the old: Our shared experiences18 August 2011 | Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, Vol. 44, No. 2U.S. Department of Justice Travel Alert: U.S. Enforcement Efforts Likely to Curtail Business Travel Rather than Online Gambling Joseph M. Kelly, Alex A. Igelman, and Keith Furlong7 December 2006 | Gaming Law Review, Vol. 10, No. 6 Volume 10Issue 4Aug 2006 InformationCopyright 2006, Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.To cite this article:Morden C. Lazarus, Edwin D. Monzon, and Richard B. Wodnicki.The Mohawks of Kahnawá:ke and the Case for an Aboriginal Right to Gaming under the Canada Constitution Act, 1982.Gaming Law Review.Aug 2006.369-378.http://doi.org/10.1089/glr.2006.10.369Published in Volume: 10 Issue 4: August 25, 2006PDF download
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".