MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2573745411 · doi:10.60082/2563-8505.1307

Aboriginal Title and Private Property

2015· article· en· W2573745411 on OpenAlex
John Borrows

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueSupreme Court law review · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaBanff CentreNexen (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeclarationSupreme courtIndigenousLawPolitical scienceConstitutionPrivate propertySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article explores the relationship between Aboriginal title and private property. In the case of Tsilhqot’in v. British Columbia the Supreme Court of Canada declared that Aboriginal title erased the Crown’s assumed beneficial interest in such lands. The Court was not asked to consider whether private ownership interests were similarly ousted by a declaration of Aboriginal title. This article explores Tsilhqot’in’s unexamined issue and concludes that Aboriginal title could, at times, affect private interests in land and be reconciled with Aboriginal title. This conclusion is based on the Supreme Court’s Constitutional framework which emphasizes proportionality, fairness, reasonableness and reconciliation. Thus, this article argues, in the face of Crown grants to third parties on unextinguished Aboriginal title lands, these lands might be protected by: Indigenous law and/or future treaties, through the core principles underlying Canada’s Constitution.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.975
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.311 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it