Culture and the Judiciary: The Meaning of the Culture Concept as a Source of Aboriginal Rights in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Résumé L'auteur examine la démarche canadienne à l'égard de la reconnaissance des droits des peuples autochtones. La discussion porte surtout sur les problèmes, autant conceptuels que juridiques, au centre du discours culturel de la Cour suprême du Canada. L'approche de la Cour envers la culture, la “spécificité culturelle” et les “droits culturels” ne concorde pas avec les conceptions anthropologiques ou historique contemporaines de la culture. En particulier, cette approche a tendance à “figer dans le temps” les droits culturels autochtones. Les idées culturelles de la Cour sont basées en partie sur les témoignages des experts (y compris des perspectives autochtones), sur les droits de l'homme et sur l'opinion publique, mais ils ont aussi des qualités qui leur sont propres. Ces dernières sont orientées vers les questions politiques entourant la souveraineté de la Couronne et les revendications d'autodétermination des peuples autochtones. Le discours culturel de la Cour est inséparable d'une opposition entre une politique libérale d'égalité et les droits et revendications spécifiques des peuples distincts.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".