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.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.083 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".