Expansion of the Canadian Polis: Replicating International Legal Norms of Indigenous Self-Determination in the Canadian Context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the polis is state or society especially when characterized by a sense of community. Much of the relevant scholarship explores the obvious disconnect between notions of Canadian community and marginalised Indigenous groups. This paper will put forth the assertion that the Canadian polis must be expanded to encompass international legal conceptions of Indigenous self-determination, thereby facilitating greater inclusion of Indigenous communities through the recognition of their rights. The paper will include a legal analysis of Indigenous self-determination alongside notions of peoples, both as represented under international law. This will lead to an in-depth evaluation of the extent to which Indigenous self-determination under international law can be replicated in the Canadian context. This will include legal analyses of whether Indigenous peoples constitute peoples, rather than minority groups, and therefore, are holders of a right of self-determination. Ultimately, the paper will argue that Indigenous self-determination is the right of Indigenous peoples to choose how they live their shared lives and structure their communities based on their own norms, laws, and cultures. Furthermore, it will be argued that in the Canadian context, Aboriginal communities constitute peoples, not simply minority groups, and therefore, should be recognised as holders of a right of self-determination as defined by international law. However, these conceptions require a significant expansion of the Canadian polis from its current depiction to include the replication of international legal norms of Indigenous self-determination. Ultimately, they necessitate an expanded role for international law as it pertains to Indigenous communities within the Canadian polis.
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 | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.031 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".