Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada was founded on three legal traditions: common law, civil law, and Indigenous law. Despite this multijuridical founding, Indigenous legal traditions (ILTs) have been largely ignored in many areas of Canadian law. This lack of inclusion is harmful to Canadian society in several ways. Notably, it ignores Canadaâs treaty obligations, disregards the social integration of contemporary Canadian society, and wastes an excellent opportunity to aid in the reconciliation of Canadaâs colonial past. It is not as though Canada is without opportunities to integrate ILTs into its legal systems. For example, in the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision, CCH v LSUC, the Court outlined a shift in Canadian copyright law, moving toward a model of âfair useâ and âsocial goodâ in the copyright space. In so doing, the Court did not rely on any Indigenous legal or cultural justifications for its decision; however, copyright law is an ideal space for the inclusion of ILTs. Not only are many of the new elements outlined by the Supreme Court similar to many Indigenous nationsâ views on property, but Canadian copyright law also has a history of integration, having already merged the British and Francophone traditions. This paper argues that such an inclusion would be beneficial for all Canadians and would represent a positive step in Canadaâs relations with its Indigenous nations. A broad view of ILTs is taken in this paper so as to allow the argument to stand without distracting criticism of the substance of any nationâs distinct tradition. Indeed, the paper takes an overarching view on a broad topic and asks the salient questions about whether integration is possible and whether it can be achieved. The answer, to both, is in the affirmative.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".