THE CROWN’S FIDUCIARY DUTIES TO ABORIGINAL PEOPLES AS AN ASPECT OF CLIMATE JUSTICE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rapid climate change in the arctic is threatening the life, health and cultural traditions of the Inuit. Although they are among the least responsible for climate change, they are suffering disproportionately from its negative effects. In particular, the inherent link between Inuit land and culture means that their traditional practices are being threatened along with the arctic environment. However, their efforts to obtain redress from those responsible for greenhouse gas emissions have so far been unsuccessful. Claims in common law public nuisance have been plagued by issues of standing, justiciability and causation, and claims at international law are difficult to prove and enforce. It seems that a different approach may be required.This article examines whether the Crown’s fiduciary obligation toward Canada’s Aboriginal peoples might provide a useful conceptual framework for addressing arctic climate change. Although this obligation is typically applied in situations involving Aboriginal lands or distinctive cultural practices, it can arguably be invoked to protect the traditional subsistence lifestyle of the Inuit. Both the fiduciary obligations and the honour of the Crown require a minimum level of consultation and accommodation where significant Aboriginal interests are threatened. This could translate into an obligation to, at least, assist the Inuit in adapting to the changing arctic environment and preserving cultural practices to the extent possible.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".