Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 1996 Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples addressed the difficulties inherent in the domestication of Aboriginal and treaty rights in Canada. While Aboriginal peoples can now legitimately question the injustice of colonial encounters and lay claim to pre-existing rights within the nation states in which they live, it is also becoming increasingly clear that these states can extensively modify, infringe, or extinguish indigenous rights. The Report indicated that Aboriginal peoples require the choice and the ability to pursue objectives that differ from those of the Canadian state. Furthermore, Aboriginal peoples desire greater control over the development of their land and resources so that it conforms more to their values and objectives. This article questions whether the Commission's recommendations with respect to Aboriginal and treaty rights to land and resources have been effectively taken into consideration in subsequent legislative and jurisprudential developments. The author's analysis demonstrates that the recommendations and proposals with respect to treaties, treaty making, Aboriginal land base, Aboriginal title, the Canadian government's fiduciary obligation to Aboriginal peoples, and Metis rights to land and governance have yet to be sufficiently observed. While the Report has certainly influenced government policy, Aboriginal peoples are nevertheless denied the recognition of Aboriginal and treaty rights to lands and resources in the manner recommended by the Commission.
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 | 0.019 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.044 | 0.060 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".