Bibliographic record
Abstract
Law is not just an idea; it is a practice.Law helps us find ways of organizing decision making to regulate our actions and resolve our disputes in an authoritative manner.However, what constitutes authority, organization, regulation, and resolution are open questions.The practice of law varies with the context in which decision making is situated.It is coloured by the cultures in which it occurs and is influenced by the beliefs, languages, social structures, political organization, and economic circumstances of the groups within which it takes place.Concepts of time, scale, space, causation, responsibility, opportunity, and success are not the same in all places.The ten articles in this special issue on Indigenous peoples' law, land, and literature examine the impact of these truths.Each author explores how the contours of Indigenous laws can be explored through stories rooted within specific territorial contexts.The following articles reflect on the authors' experiences of working with Indigenous legal traditions through stories.Indigenous legal orders encourage the use of stories to examine regulatory and dispute resolution issues from a grounded perspective.While abstract theories and linear philosophical arguments can be used to discuss Indigenous peoples' law, the articles in this volume reveal another set of intellectual traditions at work.Approximately one year ago, Laverne Jacobs, editor-in-chief of the Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice [WYAJ] asked if I would be willing to act as a guest editor to develop a special issue on Indigenous legal issues.Having served on the WYAJ Advisory Board for some time and having published a couple of articles in the WYAJ during my career, I was very happy to accept the invitation.I immediately identified and invited nine emerging scholars who work at the edge of innovation in their field to write for this volume.They are practitioners and law professors who work with Indigenous peoples' own legal traditions from a community perspective, and, in the process, they are changing how we think about law in Canada.Remarkably, the changes they identify are not always new.The insights they activate are often rooted in centuries-old understandings of Indigenous peoples' relationship with the land.Stories related to Indigenous peoples' land and the laws they implicate are a central theme of this special issue.The lead article in this volume, which is my contribution, describes work occurring in Canadian law schools related to land-based education.Through my experiences on the Cape Croker Indian reserve and my twenty-five-year career as a law professor, the article considers how Indigenous peoples have their own ways of reasoning from the land that generates resources for legal decision makingthrough stories and land-based learning.Along the way, this article describes how law schools are taking students outside the classroom to learn about Indigenous peoples' legal processes and the substantive obligations they generate.
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 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 0.016 |
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".