Constituting Aboriginal Collectivities: Avoiding New Peoples 'In Between'
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patriation of the Canadian Constitution, along with the addition of significant new provisions since 1982, has had a profound effect on the political, legal and social fabric of Canada. Perhaps only second to the inclusion of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the express recognition and affirmation that the existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the Indian, Inuit and Metis Peoples of Canada are part of the supreme law of the land through ss. 35(1) and 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 has created a fundamental shift in attitudes and expectations on the part of both Aboriginal peoples and non-Aboriginal Canadians. Despite its relative maturity after twenty-two years, surprisingly little progress has been made in identifying what this recognition entails, or about the political geography of Aboriginal peoples, whether in the aggregate or of any one of the three peoples specifically mentioned in s. 35(2). This lack of development is particularly disturbing given the considerable efforts invested by so many people in pushing the infant constitutional baby into adulthood at an accelerated rate. The stunted development in the political recognition of collective identities for Metis, as well as for First Nations, is cause for considerable concern. This drawn out transition appears particularly problematic for the Metis. They have received the least focus from non-Aboriginal governments to date in constitutional efforts, Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples recommendations, and especially in tangible efforts to reach agreements on self-government. This article reviews the main contours of the challenge to Metis identities, drawing on a range of cases reflecting three broad relational contexts. First, it examines the treaty/scrip relationship - prominent from 1870 to 1929 in the numbered Treaties from #1-11. Second, it explores the same issue of Metis/Indian boundaries and collective identities in relation to non-scrip areas. Finally, it assesses the relationship in aboriginal title regions. The essay offers a set of organizing principles to aid what must increasingly become a legal-political process of reconciliation in the near future. In doing so, it stresses the need for a coordinated and national process of redress - and rectification - in relation to the identity regimes that will, and must, apply in relation to Metis, First Nations and, in some cases, to the Inuit.
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 | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.055 | 0.045 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.023 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".