MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2602983245 · doi:10.22329/wyaj.v33i1.4810

DECOLONIZING AND INDIGENIZING: SOME CONSIDERATIONS FOR LAW SCHOOLS

2017· article· en· W2602983245 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Jeffery Hewitt

Bibliographic record

VenueWindsor Yearbook of Access to Justice · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLaw in Society and Culture
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSociologyHumanitiesLawPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada [TRC] identified law schools as a site of ongoing colonization and specifically called upon law schools to change in a variety of ways – from instituting mandatory courses relating to Indigenous Peoples to reconceptualizing the institution of law schools themselves. This article considers whether “Indigenizing” curriculum is coming at the expense of addressing the need to decolonize law schools as institutions. The author argues that both Indigenizing and decolonizing are a vital coupling if full meaning is to be given to the TRC’s Calls to Action. Though the process is complicated and ripe with challenge, listening to and working with Indigenous peoples is essential if law schools really seek fundamental change.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.683
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.100
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations28
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWindsor Yearbook of Access to JusticeSame topicLaw in Society and CultureFrench-language works237,207