“Culture and the Courts” Revisited: Group-Rights Scholarship and the Evolution of s.35(1)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract.In revisiting Michael Murphy's critique of the cultural test adopted by the Supreme Court of Canada to interpret Aboriginal rights, this article takes up the suggestion that the works of Charles Taylor and Will Kymlicka support an inherent understanding of Aboriginal rights. An assessment of the jurisprudence suggests that the Court's approach reflects, rather than contradicts, Taylor's and Kymlicka's rights frameworks, which invoke the same discourse of culture and identity embraced by the Court. The article also contends that the role played by culture in Canada's Aboriginal rights jurisprudence extends well beyond the cultural rationale adopted by the Court. Résumé.En revisitant la critique de Michael Murphy sur l'examen culturel adopté par la Court Suprême du Canada dans l'interprétation des droits indigènes, cet article adopte la suggestion que les travaux de Charles Taylor et Kymlicka supportent une définition inhérente des droits indigènes. Une évaluation de la jurisprudence suggère que la position de la cour reflète, plutôt que contredit, l'approche des droits mise en avant par Taylor et Kymlicka. Celle-ci, en effet accepte le même discours culturel et identitaire que la court. L'article affirme également que le rôle joué par la culture dans la jurisprudence Canadienne sur les droits indigènes se prolonge bien au delà du raisonnement culturel adopté par la court.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.067 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".