Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the failure of the Charlottetown Accord in 1992, which would have entrenched a third order of aboriginal self-government alongside the federal and provincial orders, aboriginal self-government has not been conceived in terms of federalism doctrine. Instead, the negotiation of aboriginal self-government has been left to the vicissitudes of political drama and s.35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982. Both options fail to capture the true nature of self-government as a concept; the exercise of a jurisdictional, rather than individual, right.The author argues that existing federalism doctrine, painstakingly developed over generations, can provide the theoretical framework by which to understand an inherent form of aboriginal self-government in the Canadian federation. Aboriginal issues, with few exceptions, have almost exclusively been understood under the individualistic rubric of Charter-type litigation in common law courts. But, the Charter, and by extension s.35(1), cannot capture the institutional and communal character of aboriginal self-government. Canadian federalism, on the other hand, can.The paper reviews the political basis of Canadian federalism, its translation into stable legal doctrines, and the strength of these doctrines in comparison to the alternatives. On the whole, the paper argues that federalism must not be sacrificed at the altar of individual rights, as institutional studies are still useful in understanding modern problems within the Canadian federation.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| 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 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".