Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper discusses the difficulty faced by the courts in applying existing legal principles to meet the demands of self-governance initiatives when called upon as courts of judicial review. An appeal or judicial review that applies a high standard of deference must still be able to adjudicate on a principled basis. A deferential standard ought not simply accept the reasonableness of lower decisions on the basis that those decisions were made in the context of the exercise of Indigenous governance; to do so would be a waste of resources and contrary to the rule of law.The essay begins by mapping the broad limits of Indigenous governance regimes within existing law by looking at inherent and constitutional demands and limitations of Indigenous self-governance. The ability of administrative law to accommodate Indigenous self-government initiatives is then considered. Concluding that the principles of administrative law provide sufficient flexibility to offer a mechanism to uphold both the rule of law and Indigenous self-governance within inherent limits, possible ways of identifying those limits are discussed. The paper concludes that unless Indigenous legal principles inform Canadian legal norms, the mechanism of judicial review will limit Indigenous self-government such that common law conceptions of the rule of law will hamper legitimate Indigenous attempts to stray from Canadian norms.
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 | 0.012 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".