MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2255962489

First Nations Self-Government and the Borders of the Canadian Legal Imagination

2001· article· en· W2255962489 on OpenAlexaffabout
Patrick Macklem

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMulticultural Socio-Legal Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousTreatySovereigntyLawJurisprudencePolitical scienceInternational lawConstitutionGovernment (linguistics)SociologyLaw and economicsPolitics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Self-government has become a major policy objective for First Nations in Canada. The common law of aboriginal title, the law relating to treaty rights and treaty interpretation, the distribution of legislative authority over indigenous peoples, and emergent jurisprudence under s. 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982, currently resist native aspirations for greater control over their individual and collective destinies by imposing Anglo-Canadian categories of legal understanding onto indigenous reality. The imposition of Anglo-Canadian norms is effected in law by a rhetoric of justification that simultaneously views indigenous people as similar to and different than non-indigenous people, and establishes and maintains legal relationships of dependence and hierarchy between First Nations and the Canadian state. Each area of the law, however, contains moments of transformative possibility that could assist in the realization of First Nations self-government. The author argues for specific reconceptualizations of Anglo-Canadian conceptions of property, contract, sovereignty, and constitutional right to permit the construction of legal spaces in which First Nations self-government can take root and flourish and to enable indigenous peoples to participate in the formation of laws that shape and govern their lives.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.884
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

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 studies0.0040.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations7
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicMulticultural Socio-Legal StudiesFrench-language works237,207