Gender relations and self-determination : Individual rights and individual property
Bibliographic record
Abstract
IntroductionMuch of the scholarship on Indigenous rights in the Canadian context distinguishes Native understandings of land and its usage as being ontologically different (Bryan, 2000) from the Western-European idea of property, in which land is seen as a fungible commodity.Private property epitomizes individual rights and therefore seems antithetical to Aboriginal ways based on collective social structure.As private property is seen as a natural state within most of the Western world, divergent understandings of property within a culture can create cleavages that wreak havoc on community (Bryan, 2000, p. 4) Thus Stolzenberg (2000) argues, property law has a strong cultural function with "profound consequences for cultural relations" (p.170).Using private property as a lens to explore the relationship between culture and equality, this paper explores how cultural changes, through the introduction of private property rights on reserve land, may affect women' s equal access to culture and land.Since gender discrimination is rooted, cloaked and obscured in the beliefs and practices of culture, this paper attempts to disentangle culture, gender, and equality through a focus on group versus individual rights.The most recent version of private property rights being proposed for Native reserve land is called the First Nations Property Ownership (FNPO) initiative.It is an opt-in legislation, which by its fundamental nature of ownership and possession, promotes the ideas of choice and preference, both of which are essential to liberal ideas of equality.If adopted, it is argued Native peoples would then have equal opportunity-as other Canadians-to join in the economic free market, to use land as a financial asset, as collateral, and have the ability to possess and transfer ownership.The FNPO is also promoted as enabling self-determination since underlying title of the land is transferred
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 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".