From the legalization of politics, to the politics of the archive : examining some of the political effects of Canada’s constitutional patriation on Aboriginal peoples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis examines some of the effects Canada’s constitutional patriation has had on Aboriginal peoples. In particular, it focuses on the way in which the politics of the archive has mediated the relationship between Aboriginal peoples and the Canadian state since 1982. To this end, while many studies of Canada’s post-1982 political constellation have noted an increasing ‘legalization’ of politics since the adoption of the Constitution Act, 1982, few have studied what legalization’s increasing reliance on archives means for mediating the resulting political relationships. By politics of the archive then, the thesis identifies the Canadian state’s attempt to structure political authority around the presence—or lack—of archival materials and documents. This ‘will to archive’ is identified as operating according to a distinct set of limitations however. Focusing on how these limitations are used, mobilized and exacerbated by the Canadian state reveals the extent to which Canada’s constitutional patriation has favoured the reinforcement of the state’s archival authority in relation to Aboriginal peoples’ claims. Through the use of Social Capital theory the latter portion of the thesis offers a critique of this tendency and ultimately concludes that a renewal of the relationship between Aboriginal peoples and the Canadian state will likely require the development of post-adversarial forms of justice, less structurally dependent on the presence of archives to determine the nature and scope of Aboriginal peoples’ rights to self-determination.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".