Bibliographic record
Abstract
Part of a collection on the jurisprudence of recently retired Supreme Court of Canada Justice Louis LeBel, this paper draws from Justice LeBel’s jurisprudence on Aboriginal rights and develops from it several larger themes that run through other parts of his jurisprudence. The paper shows that Justice LeBel wrote a small number of very important Aboriginal rights decisions, and his decisions arguably showed prescience on matters that the Court missed at the time. At the same time, Justice LeBel has also opened broader questions through his Aboriginal rights jurisprudence, notably on collective aspects of Canadian constitutional rights. Justice LeBel’s jurisprudence has long identified collective aspects to various rights, and the chapter shows the Court just beginning to catch up to Justice LeBel’s jurisprudence in this area. Finally, Justice LeBel’s Aboriginal rights jurisprudence also manifests larger aspects of his approach to adjudication and the role of a judge. The last section discusses how the recent Supreme Court of Canada Aboriginal title judgment in Tsilhqot’in shows the Court learning some things from Justice LeBel’s Aboriginal rights jurisprudence but continuing to miss others.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".