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 Canada’s treaty obligations, disregards the social integration of contemporary Canadian society, and wastes an excellent opportunity to aid in the reconciliation of Canada’s 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 “fair use” and “social good” 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 nations’ 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 Canada’s 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 nation’s 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 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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.048 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".