The Principles and Practices of Aboriginal Equity Programs in Canadian Law Schools: A Comparative Study of the Saskatchewan College of Law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article responds to the clear need for an increased understanding of the principles and practices of equity for Aboriginal students at the Saskatchewan College of Law. To this end, it is fashioned to support efforts to educate law students on the rationale for equity in legal education and reduce the presence of anti-equity sentiments in law school culture. The concepts of substantive equality and anti-discrimination are applied to the equity policies in place in Canadian law schools, and in particular at the Saskatchewan College of Law. This paper’s objective is to initiate a principled analysis that can ground the formal and informal debates on equity underway in Saskatchewan. It engages with equity’s detractors by defining equity and fleshing out the basic moral and legal justification for equity initiatives for Aboriginal students in Canadian law schools. This reflection on the Saskatchewan experience with Aboriginal equity programming is of interest to law schools across the country, where similar issues are undoubtedly at play.
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 | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.053 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".