MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2220704094 · doi:10.22329/wyaj.v30i2.4373

INCOMMENSURABLE LEGAL CULTURES: INDIGENOUS LEGAL TRADITIONS AND THE COLONIAL NARRATIVE

2012· article· en· W2220704094 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Kirsten Manley‐Casimir

Bibliographic record

VenueWindsor Yearbook of Access to Justice · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLaw in Society and Culture
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousMythologyEthnologyNarrativeHumanitiesSociologyHistoryAnthropologyPhilosophyArtTheologyLiteratureEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, the author argues that the non-Indigenous legal system has historically exerted and continues to exert violence on Indigenous legal traditions by insisting that its interpretation of law is authoritative and excluding alternative interpretations. Relying on Robert Cover’s theories, she asserts that both non-Indigenous and Indigenous legal traditions are based on mythology, narratives and particularized language which support the different normative values that characterize the cultures from which they arise. Non-Indigenous judges may refuse to exert violence by recognizing the value inherent in and accepting the incommensurability of Indigenous legal traditions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.785
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.306 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWindsor Yearbook of Access to JusticeSame topicLaw in Society and CultureFrench-language works237,207