"Extinguishment of Aboriginal Title in Canada: Treaties, Legislation, and Judicial Discretion"
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canadian courts have held that Aboriginal title is extinguishable consensually by means of a treaty with the Aboriginal nation concerned. Legislative extinguishment was also possible prior to recognition of Aboriginal title in the Constitution of Canada in 1982. These methods of extinguishment are discussed in Parts 1 and 2 of this article. It is suggested that extinguishment by treaty could occur only if that were permissible by the law of the Aboriginal nation. Extinguishment by legislation would have depended on the legislative body having the constitutional authority to extinguish the title. In addition, the legislative intention to extinguish would have had to be clear and plain. Finally, Part 3 of the article discusses the recent emergence in the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision in the Chippewas of Sarnia case of what appears to be a third method of extinguishment of Aboriginal title, namely extinguishment through the exercise of judicial discretion. This aspect of the Court of Appeals decision is criticized as a disturbing departure from established judicial precedent and legal principle.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".