Bibliographic record
Abstract
To determine the extent to which Aboriginal title-holders enjoy control over Aboriginal title lands, it is necessary to explore fiduciary doctrine, for the application of this doctrine to the question of legislative infringement determines the limits within which Aboriginal title-holders can expect to see their interests respected. In Delgamuukw the Supreme Court of Canada adopted and applied an understanding of the Crown-Aboriginal fiduciary relationship it developed in Gladstone. In so doing the Supreme Court set out the power of Canadian governments to control the uses to which Aboriginal title lands can be put. Ironically, since Aboriginal title is characterized by the Court as exclusive in nature, the application of the Gladstone position significantly enhances the power of the Crown. The result is the creation of a judicial concept of Aboriginal title which on first reading might appear to hold out much promise to Aboriginal peoples struggling to meet sacred responsibilities vis-à-vis their lands, but which is actually impotent to slow the exploitation of.Aboriginal lands by Canadian governments and third parties acting under authority of Canadian governments. Clearly, then, Delgamuukw must be understood as a legal tool employed in continuing efforts to assimilate Aboriginal peoples into mainstream Canadian society.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".