Les Logiques De La Rationalité Judiciaire Et Le Processus De La Preuve Dans Le Contentieux Des Droits Des Peuples Autochtones : Le Cas Des Récits Oraux (The Logics of Judicial Reasoning in the Assessment of Oral Evidence in Aboriginal Cases)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
French Abstract: Cet article porte sur la rationalite judiciaire dans l’appreciation de la preuve, et plus precisement sur la maniere par laquelle s’opere la reflexion judiciaire dans l’evaluation de la valeur probante de la preuve sous la forme de recits oraux dans le contentieux relatif aux droits des peuples autochtones. A la lecture de la jurisprudence pertinente, on note qu’une fois admis en preuve, les recits oraux sont tantot surevalues, tantot sous-evalues, voire meme ignores, lors de la determination des faits par le juge. Ces courants jurisprudentiels nous amenent a conclure que la rationalite judiciaire dans l’appreciation de la preuve sous la forme de recits oraux se deploie selon trois logiques : (1) la logique systematique, (2) la logique reconciliatrice et (3) la logique empathique. La decouverte de ce triptyque de la rationalite judiciaire dans l’appreciation de la preuve sous la forme de recits oraux nous permet d’apporter un nouvel eclairage sur la complexite de l’acte de juger dans le cadre de litiges mettant en jeu un droit vise par le paragraphe 35(1) de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982. Cette analyse jette la lumiere sur le fait que la demarche d’appreciation de la preuve dans le contentieux relatif aux droits des peuples autochtones est encore largement experimentale et vient valider empiriquement l’assertion de la Cour supreme du Canada selon laquelle la resolution des revendications autochtones entraine le droit, et donc le juge, dans les univers mal balises de l’histoire, des legendes, de la politique et des obligations morales. English Abstract: This article is about judicial reasoning in the assessment of evidence, and more precisely about judicial reasoning with respect to gauging the weight of oral history and oral tradition evidence presented by Aboriginal peoples in cases involving Aboriginal and treaty rights claims. Their study of the cases leads the authors to observe that such evidence, once found admissible, is either given excessive or insufficient weight, or is ignored. They also conclude that judicial reasoning in the assessment of proceeds from three different logics : (1) systematic; (2) reconciliatory; and (3) empathic. The article explains these logics and thus sheds new light on the complexity of the act of judging in cases involving rights recognized under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. This study shows that the evaluation of evidence in Aboriginal litigation is still substantially experimental and validates the Supreme Court’s assertion that the resolution of Aboriginal claims takes the law, and thus judges, into the often unchartered waters of history, legends, politics and moral obligations.
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 | 0.013 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".