Bibliographic record
Abstract
La présente thèse a pour objet d’analyser les moyens par lesquels la langue inuit au Nunavut pourrait être constitutionnalisée en droit canadien. Nous dresserons la toile de fond des droits linguistiques au Nunavut pour ensuite analyser les moyens par lesquels le droits canadien pourrait conférer des protections constitutionnelles à cette langue. En premier lieu, nous analyserons l’article 35 de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982 en vue de répondre à la question de savoir si la langue inuit pourrait constituer un droit ancestral. Nous analyserons aussi la question de savoir si une telle reconnaissance exigerait que la Couronne prenne des mesures positives pour protéger cette langue. Nous expliciterons ensuite les moyens par lesquels on pourrait constitutionnaliser expressément la langue inuit au Nunavut. Pour ce faire, nous étudierons, d’une part, la procédure de modification prévue à l’Accord sur les revendications territoriales du Nunavut et, d’autre part, les procédures de modification prévues à la Partie V de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".