Defining Métis People as a People: Moving Beyond the Indian/Métis Dichotomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article argues that the legal definition that defines Metis people in opposition to Indian detracts from the goal of recognizing the Metis as a distinct people. The article argues that we ought to de-couple the definitions of Metis and Indian to more strongly recognize Metis as a distinct people. This article considers three intertwined concerns that arise from this dichotomous approach to Metis identity The first concern is about the "hard line" created in the definition between Indian and Metis, forcing one to be either Indian or Metis. The second concern is that changes to the definition of Indian may impact the definition of Metis, making the two identities contingent and inherently connected. The final related concern is that defining Metis as "not Indian" leads to the question of how distinct Metis culture needs to be from Indian culture for recognition. The article argues that we need to re-centre the definition of Metis on being Metis people based on internal characteristics (who Metis are) and move away from the legal definition of Metis being contingent on the legal definition of Indian (who Metis are not).
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.044 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| 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".