Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the release of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s final report, which stressed the revitalization of Indigenous legal traditions is essential to reconciliation, we are potentially at the cusp of a historical turning point in Canada. As momentum around the revitalization of Indigenous laws grows, this raises many important questions for the future. Can we collectively imagine a Canada where Indigenous law is integrated and in use? What would, or should, this respectful relationship look like? This article explores these questions through narrative. Narrative, as many Indigenous and non-Indigenous thinkers have identified, has unique capacity to create space for conversations, spark imagination, and let us contemplate the incomprehensible. This article mindfully uses narrative as a means to vulnerably re-imagine a future relationship between Indigenous and other legal traditions in Canada. It acknowledges the deep-rooted enduring power of Indigenous laws, as well as both the immensity and transitory nature of current complexities. It names aspects of learning and engagement with the Cree legal tradition the author may never fully comprehend, but still senses are important. It grapples with the enormity of hope and despair, the power of violence and the power of love. It argues, through narrative, that law is living, time is fluid, change is possible and our shared future is ours to re-imagine.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".