MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2325547125 · doi:10.1017/s0829320100007237

From<i>Terra Nullius</i>to Affirmation: Reconciling Aboriginal Rights with the Canadian Constitution

2002· article· fr· W2325547125 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Law and Society / Revue Canadienne Droit et Société · 2002
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMulticultural Socio-Legal Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesDoctrineConstitutionEthnologyPolitical sciencePhilosophySociologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Résumé L'État canadien se présente comme tolérant, anti-colonial et auto-critique. Cependant, la justification légale de la Couronne pour acquérir souveraineté et juridiction sur les Peuples autochtones et leurs terres s'appuie sur la doctrine coloniale de la terra nullius qui est fondée sur le postulat que les peuples indigènes étaient inférieurs au point de permettre à la Couronne de présumer que leurs terres étaient inoccupées. L'article analyse comment la doctrine de la terra nullius a fini par s'appliquer en droit canadien et ses limites en tant que proposition acceptable dans la contemporanéité. Dans un second temps, il évalue des alternatives proposées dans des milieux variés pour déterminer si la conceptualisation et la mise en œuvre d'une relation politique et légale entre les Premières nations et le Canada qui serait post-coloniale dans sa perspective et pratique, est possible.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.898
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.240 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it