DABAADENDIZIWIN: PRACTICES OF HUMILITY IN A MULTI-JURIDICAL LEGAL LANDSCAPE
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dabaadendiziwin is the Anishinaabe word which roughly translates to ‘humility’ in English. The late elder Basil Johnston said that we can talk of dabaadendiziwin/humility, but until we can look at the squirrel sitting on the branch and know we are no greater and no less than her, it is only then that we have walked with dabaadendiziwin/humility. Law places diverse peoples together in complicated situations. It challenges people to step outside of themselves and consider new ways of being. This paper advocates that humility is an important legal principle to bring people together in a good way. It considers first, what is humility and why is it an important legal principle? Second, what processes are in place in both Canadian and Anishinaabe law to actively cultivate humility? And third, how can diverse peoples use these processes when interacting with one another in ways that foster greater harmony in this multi-juridical country? The examples show that Canadian colonial law has tried to account for the need to humble oneself to a position of being teachable through Charter analyses, diversifying the bench, and through Aboriginal rights doctrines of taking into account the “aboriginal perspective”, and reconciliation. The paper also considers how Anishinaabe law fosters humility through linguistic structure, leadership structure, ceremonial practices and akinoomaage (learning from the earth). This paper is a call for people to confront the challenge of working across legal orders, and replace timidity, fear and pride with courage, gratitude and humility.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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 it