MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2609703429 · doi:10.29173/alr494

The Crown's Duty to Consult Aboriginal People

2003· article· en· W2609703429 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
T. M. Thomas Isaac, Anthony Knox

Bibliographic record

VenueAlberta Law Review · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal principles and applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDutyCertaintyTreatyLawLegal certaintySubject (documents)Crown (dentistry)Political scienceLaw and economicsBusinessSociologyPhilosophyComputer scienceMedicineEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Crown's duty to consult Aboriginal people when contemplating an infringement of an Aboriginal or treaty right is becoming settled in law. The procedural and substantive content of that duty, however, remains uncertain. These authors demonstrate the need for certainty for industries contemplating the exploitation of lands potentially subject to Aboriginal and treaty rights, and discuss where we can look for certainty.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.441
Threshold uncertainty score0.887

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.008
Scholarly communication0.0080.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0100.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.336 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations26
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlberta Law ReviewSame topicLegal principles and applicationsFrench-language works237,207