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
In this article, I have attempted to outline the ways and means in which I entered my training and understanding as an Indigenous legal scholar. This took me to a Canadian law school, an American law school, and finally to an Indigenous community that took responsibility for educating me in Indigenous lands, laws, and legal orders. The struggles I have detailed here and the stories I have provided serve a few purposes. The first is one that I hope assists Indigenous students attending law school. The purpose in writing this article is to let you know that you do not have to lose the incredibly challenging and beautiful stuff put in us by birth. We come from critical Indigenous legal traditions that allow us to critique, question, and build something better. Canadian law can make our processes of learning this and our substantive knowledge feel like marginalized information. That gut feeling you have that tells you something is not fair is very likely precisely right. Pay attention to it, hone it, and listen to it. It is a part of your critical consciousness, and it is going to make you a very good thinker and potentially an excellent lawyer. The second purpose for, and rationale behind, publishing this article is to provide an understanding for non-Indigenous students about the existence of, and need to ask about, Indigenous laws and legal orders in your legal studies. We are all being short-changed if we do not investigate, inquire, and require discussion. This article also serves as a reminder for faculty and staff at law schools that there is an obligation to address with seriousness and studiousness the reality of Indigenous laws and legal orders in Canada as a multi-juridical entity. Many of our students know this and are living this—we need to catch up with, be informed about, and be respectful of them. The final reason I wrote this piece is to introduce the notion of the praxis of critical Indigenous legal theory. Having taught the course content to a generation of law students and now having had feedback from some of the practitioners, I think that understanding Indigenous law as a praxis/practice, and not just a theory, requires more of us as educators, students, and practitioners.
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 | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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