Does Constitutional Change Matter? Canada's Recognition of Aboriginal Title
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Significant disagreement exists among scholars and practitioners as to the political, legal and social implications of constitutional change. This article evaluates the impacts of constitutional change through an empirical study of Aboriginal title litigation in Canada. Through the historical comparison of Aboriginal title claims brought before and after the constitutional incorporation of Aboriginal rights, it demonstrates how Aboriginal title doctrine and rates of litigation have changed since Aboriginal rights were incorporated into the Canadian Constitution. It suggests that these changes in Aboriginal title litigation should be understood through an evaluation of several possible explanations in addition to textual change, including the evolution of the common law, shifts in judicial personnel, and the rise of legal support networks. It concludes that while the Canadian Supreme Court and Aboriginal title claimants' heavy reliance on constitutional arguments indicates that the constitutional recognition of Aboriginal rights has influenced the development of Aboriginal title litigation since 1982, these changes are best understood as the result of sustained interactions among multiple influences.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it