Balancing Strategies: Aboriginal Women and Constitutional Rights in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Constitutional change in Canada has, for most of the country’s history, been a cautious process driven by white male elites within colonial and federal-provincial relationships, in a context driven by capitalist rather than democratic interests. Occasionally, women qua women have used law and politics to secure a measure of equitable justice, as in the 1929 Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (then the highest appeal court) Persons decision 2 that held that Canadian women were persons for the purpose of Senate appointments. This decision did not, however, translate then and since into an equitable or even significant number of female appointments to the Senate, itself an unrepresentative, unaccountable and highly problematic vestige of a more anti-democratic historical period. Legal action has also produced decisions like the infamous 1974 Attorney-General v. Lavell and Isaac v. Bedard decisions, in which the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed the racist, sexist status quo of the pre-1985 Indian Act as de jure equality, as all Indian women were equally subject to the offensive provisions. However, in 1982 the patriation of the then-British North America Act of 1867 (now re-named Constitution Act 1867), together with constitutional revisions and the adoption of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, signalled a change in both constitutional vision and in federal and democratic engagement in constitutional politics in Canada.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".