Bibliographic record
Abstract
On October 8, 2015, after more than 14 years of litigation, the Supreme Court of Canada heard arguments in the Daniels case, which centers around the fundamental question of whether the term “Indians” as used in section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867 includes Métis and Non-status Indians. In seeking various declarations, the Plaintiffs hoped to bring to an end a longstanding jurisdictional dispute between the Provinces and Canada that resulted in Métis and Non-status Indians being treated like “political footballs.”The purpose of this short summary is to provide the reader with background information and to describe the submissions of the Métis Settlements General Council as intervener. It should be noted that the case raises a number of issues not addressed in this paper that may nonetheless be of interest to the constitutional bar regarding the Court’s power to grant declaratory relief, including whether and how to apply the interpretive principles (are progressive and purposive interpretation two sides of the same coin?), along with the ongoing dialogue between Canadian citizens, Parliament, and the Court.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".