Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Some Aboriginal people see domestic Canadian law as alien and oppressive. This paper explores one source of this perception. By examining the layers of theory and world-view upon which the law is based, it finds conflict with the sensibilities of Aboriginal peoples. The author argues that a liberal vision supports and enlivens the law, and because it is grounded in this vision, the law cannot protect the interests of Aboriginal peoples. In analyzing the current legal approach to the protection of Aboriginal interests, an alternative liberal argument based on group autonomy is also considered. By examining the debate between liberal theorists, the author reveals the danger liberalism in general presents to Aboriginal peoples and the protection of Aboriginal interests, thus revealing liberal theory to be one source of the perception of oppression. The law's grounding in a particular intellectual tradition creates the perception that the law is oppressive. In exploring an approach highly critical of liberal legal theory, in tracing the similarities between the philosophical basis of both liberal and critical legal theory, of the author's inquiry highlights the cultural rift between Western theorists and the worlds of Aboriginal peoples. Working towards a world in which Aboriginal interests can be appropriately protected does not mean translating these interests into group rights within the array of rights in Canada, nor does it mean understanding these rights as mirroring group autonomy, and it also does not mean recognizing that the "fluid and dynamic" interests of Aboriginal peoples can be better served through progressive democratic measures. In essence, it is a matter of respecting Aboriginal peoples' ability to continue to define who they are, recognizing that their potential for self-definition includes their capacity to project both their own theories and their particular forms of knowledge.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it