Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract.Everyone familiar with the study of Canadian politics knows the joke about how a French national, an Englishman and a Canadian were asked to write an essay about an elephant: the French national wrote about the culinary uses of the elephant, the Englishman wrote about the elephant and imperialism, and the Canadian wrote a paper entitled, “Elephant: Federal or Provincial Responsibility?” Though simple, the joke conveys the essence of Canadian politics: always defined by jurisdictional disputes. The joke misses the boat, however, by ignoring the fact that indigenous people are now (as they always have been) engaging in jurisdictional debates in an attempt to challenge the Canadian constitutional order and to reaffirm their own constitutional order and autonomy. This paper examines one such dispute—the Mi'kmaw claim of rights and responsibilities for the salmon fishery—and presents it as a case of contested sovereignties and a resulting jurisdictional dispute. In so doing, I pose the question: Is salmon a federal, provincial or Mi'kmaq responsibility? In seeking an answer, this paper proceeds in an exploratory manner to map both constitutional orders, and the interrelation between these orders that results in the debate over responsibility for the salmon. Résumé.Dans le milieu de la science politique au Canada, tout le monde connaît la blague du Français, du Britannique et du Canadien qui doivent écrire une thèse sur l'éléphant. Le Français disserte sur les usages culinaires de l'éléphant, le Britannique traite de l'éléphant et de l'impérialisme et le Canadien écrit une thèse intitulée : “L'éléphant : responsabilité fédérale ou provinciale?” Cette blague, dans sa simplicité, évoque l'essence même de la politique au Canada, car la politique canadienne a toujours été définie par des conflits juridictionnels. Mais, si elle illustre bien la nature de la politique au Canada, elle n'est cependant pas satisfaisante parce qu'elle ignore qu'aujourd'hui (comme autrefois d'ailleurs) les peuples autochtones s'engagent dans les débats juridictionnels pour contester l'ordre constitutionnel du Canada et pour réaffirmer leur propre ordre constitutionnel et leur autonomie. Cet article examine l'un de ces conflits : la revendication par les Mi'kmaq de leurs droits et responsabilités concernant les pêcheries de saumon – et le présente comme un cas de souverainetés contestées, et, par conséquent, un exemple de conflit juridictionnel. Je pose donc la question : “Saumon : responsabilité fédérale, provinciale ou Mi'kmaq?” En répondant à cette question, l'article explore les caractéristiques des deux ordres constitutionnels et leur connexions, ce qui mène à un débat sur l'attribution des compétences dans le domaine du saumon.
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 | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.030 | 0.055 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".