Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper discusses the nature of Indigenous peoples’ social order systems and highlights some fundamental “legal” principles that perhaps exemplify many Indigenous nation’s legal traditions to a greater or lesser degree depending on the particular nation. They are: The Principle of Progress as Renewal, The Principle of Balance, The Principle of Life-Wide Legal Agency Equality, and The Principle of Decentralized Normativity and Decision-making. In discussing these principles, the author through his own personal experiences and connection to traditional teachings, reveals the interconnectedness of indigenous legal thought and spirituality and how there is really no essential distinction between the two concepts. The point is also made that the legal cultures of Indigenous and Western societies may be different in nature, process and structure than European-based social order systems, but they were and are no less effective. In addition, the paper discusses issues concerning the right to assert control over justice and legal order within Indigenous communities. It identifies concerns with a domestic Aboriginal rights approach and prefers to ground the claim in the paradigm of international human rights instruments which are significantly less colonial and discriminatory than Canada’s Aboriginal rights jurisprudence. The paper ends with some thoughts on strategies for renewal of Indigenous legal thought, principles and processes so that the Eagle can fly freely once more.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".