Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Sto:lo people face many challenges and issues as they create a government and justice system based on prior ways of governance and justice. Some of these challenges and issues include the documenting and synthesizing of current understanding of judicial practices, establishing principles of membership or citizenship, legitimizing their own institutions, and establishing the scope and mandate of the House of Justice. The Sto:lo people are deciding what they want their justice system to look like. They face a multitude of existing judicial models and the importation of legal practices from elsewhere. Members of the Sto:lo Nation negotiate their way through various levels of federal and provincial government bureaucracy as they form relationships with these government bodies and establish their place among them. Yet, Sto:lo members must also temper their own bureaucratic growth with the need to remain flexible and responsive to the needs of the community. Current understandings of Sto:lo justice practice frame the expectations the Sto:lo people have of their own justice system. Discursive features of previous justice practices and contemporary Sto:lo issues include the importance of elders in community decision making, the importance of community and cohesion, the strength of the family and the desire to settle problems internally without external interference, the importance of sharing resources, and the Sto:lo's connection to the spiritual world. In this paper I study the inception and growth of Sto:lo nationhood, and the creation of one of the Sto:lo Nation's emerging institutions, the House of Justice. I refer to the ethnonationalist literature of Benedict Anderson, Stanley J. Tambiah and John L. Comaroff Anderson's "imagined community" is the central metaphor for this paper.
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 | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.101 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.035 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".