Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this short response to Daniels v. Canada, we set out to accomplish two tasks. First, we provide an overview of the decision, with a focus on clarifying its limited reach. In particular, we distinguish between jurisdictional questions under section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867, which Daniels addresses directly, and Aboriginal rights as encoded in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, which is outside the reach of Daniels. Second, after confronting the confusion brought forth by Daniels, we examine several different cases of nascent organizations in Québec claiming Aboriginal rights as either self-declared Métis or non-status Indians, and analyze some of their responses to the Daniels decision. We proceed to argue that in their reliance on antipathy towards Indigenous peoples, these organizations exemplify settler nativist tactics that ultimately undermine Indigenous self-determination.
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 | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.030 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.018 | 0.020 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".