Blais et Powley : les doctrines des droits aborigènes des métis sous la loupe (The Blais and Powley Cases: Métis Aboriginal Rights Doctrines Examined)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
French Abstract: Il existe historiquement trois doctrines juridiques sur la source et la nature des droits aborigenes des Metis, a savoir la doctrine de la boite vide, la doctrine des droits aborigenes derives des ancetres ameridiens et la doctrine du peuple aborigene distinct. Si la Cour supreme du Canada a tranche en faveur de cette derniere dans Powley, elle a egalement donne l'impression d'appliquer la premiere dans Blais. Dans une tentative visant a resoudre ce paradoxe et a developper une doctrine plus coherente, l'auteur propose d'abandonner l'idee que les Metis forment un peuple aborigene distinct en faveur d'une nouvelle doctrine de peuple autochtone de l'Amerique. A partir de cette doctrine, il se livre a une critique de la decision recente Federation des Metis du Manitoba c. Canada et Manitoba. English Abstract: Historically, there are three legal doctrines regarding the source and nature of Metis aboriginal rights: the 'empty box' doctrine, the derivative rights doctrine and the distinct aboriginal people doctrine. If the Supreme Court of Canada came down in favour of this latter doctrine in Powley, it also gave the impression that it was applying the first in Blais. In an attempt to resolve tis paradox and develop a coherent doctrine of Metis rights, the author proposes abandoning the use of the term 'aboriginal' and adopting a doctrine of Metis autochthonous rights. He subsequently applies this doctrine in order to critique the recent Manitoba Metis Federation v. Canada and Manitoba decision.
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 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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".