Bibliographic record
Abstract
Calls to abolish the Indian Act and to reset the relationship between Aboriginal people and the Crown dominate the academic discourse. The author proposes something different. He suggests that the Government of Canada and First Nations work within the framework of the Indian Act to find areas of agreement. In doing so, the author draws on Rawls' theory of consensus: the idea that two parties with opposing viewpoints, or comprehensive starting positions, can find areas of agreement without abandoning their respective starting positions. Despite the Crown's and First Nations' very different conceptions of the nature of their relationship, if overlapping consensus can be found on both the changes to be made to the Act and the principles that underlie those changes, progress can be made without asking either party to compromise on its foundational beliefs. The author identifies financial accountability, membership integration and financial integration in First Nation communities as areas ripe for overlapping consensus on necessary reforms. He proposes that members of a First Nation community should be entitled to have their income tax payments directed to their community. This would mean that First Nation communities would finally have the incentive to admit non-status Indians as new members because the communities would receive increased funding for each member through his or her income taxes. The tax redirection plan would further combine accountability and integration, and it would represent a reform that could begin to set the Indian Act on a better path..
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 | 0.026 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.053 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| 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".