<i>Daniels v. Canada</i>: Racialized Legacies, Settler Self-Indigenization and the Denial of Indigenous Peoplehood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this commentary on Daniels v. Canada, we discuss the cultural power of legal discourse, and more specifically, we argue that the logics that various actors have drawn from Daniels work to marginalize, if not gut completely, policy logics that are based on a respect for Métis peoplehood. In doing so, we analyze one unintended yet predictable outcome of the decision: the growth of new self-declared Métis or Indian groups, such as the Mikinak Tribe of Québec, who see Daniels as an opportunity to capitalize on the perceived benefits of being Indigenous in Canada. We conclude that while Métis inclusion in s.35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 and now in s.91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867 due to the Daniels decision remains important, these developments should be understood and used, from a policy perspective, as building blocks for affirming Métis nationhood and the self-determining power of the Métis Nation.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.034 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.021 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".