Kahkewistahaw First Nation v. Taypotat: An Arbitrary Approach to Discrimination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (“RCAP”) acknowledged education as essential to both enhancing the lives of Aboriginal individuals and achieving their collective goals. Education can improve the capacities and talents of Aboriginal citizens to assume the responsibilities of operating self-governing and community structures. In Kahkewistahaw First Nation v. Taypotat, these 20-year-old conclusions were the focus of the first paragraphs of both the factum of the Chief and Council of the Kahkewistahaw First Nation and the unanimous judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada. Education was also a key component of a more recent commission, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (“TRC”). Its inquiry into Canada’s residential schools confirmed that “the residential school system was an education system for Aboriginal children in name only for much of its existence.” Indeed, in their 2012 Interim Report, the TRC concluded that “[r]esidential schools constituted an assault on self-governing and self-sustaining Aboriginal nations,” because “one of the most far-reaching and devastating legacies of residential schools has been their impact on the educational and economic success of Aboriginal people”. The TRC’s finding that “the lowest levels of educational success are in those communities with the highest percentages of descendants of residential school Survivors: First Nations people living on reserves, and Inuit” is significant for the issues in Taypotat. These findings also illustrate that, for Aboriginal people, education cannot be understood simply or necessarily as positive.
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 | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.020 | 0.023 |
| 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".