MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2597031627 · doi:10.22329/wyaj.v33i1.4813

STL’UL NUP: LEGAL LANDSCAPES OF THE HUL’QUMI’NUM MUSTIMUHW

2017· article· en· W2597031627 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Sarah Morales

Bibliographic record

VenueWindsor Yearbook of Access to Justice · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMulticultural Socio-Legal Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousIdentity (music)Meaning (existential)EthnologyHumanitiesRelation (database)LawGeographyPolitical scienceSociologyAestheticsArtEcologyPhilosophyEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Landscape is a part of every individual’s sense of being. However, one cannot deny the special relationships that Indigenous peoples maintain with places they have inhabited since the beginning of creation. These places are deeply imbued with meaning, and are sites of personal and community identity. In addition, these places are legal in nature. They teach Indigenous people about their legal obligations – to each other, their ancestors and the natural world. This paper examines the connection between land and law for the Hul’qumi’num Mustimuhw, a group of Island Hul’qumi’num speaking First Nations, located on southeastern Vancouver Island. It discusses how lands within Indigenous territories can be transformed into legal landscapes, when considered in relation to place, time and experience. It also examines specific legal landscapes within the Hul’qumi’num territory and explores the laws and regulations that reside within and flow from them. Through this paper, one can gain insight into how these places inform the Hul’qumi’num lgal tradition and impart important teachings to the Hul’qumi’num Mustimuhw about the nature of their relationship and their obligations to particular places and inhabitants of those places.

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 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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.386
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.055
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.310 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWindsor Yearbook of Access to JusticeSame topicMulticultural Socio-Legal StudiesFrench-language works237,207