From<i>Terra Nullius</i>to Affirmation: Reconciling Aboriginal Rights with the Canadian Constitution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".