The Law of the Community and Community Rights: Implications for the Métis in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper is based on the result of a qualitative content analysis of the transcripts of the Hirsekorn trial which took place from 4 May 2009 to 24 June 2010 before the Provincial Court of Alberta. The case was based on the framework established in the Powley case, handed down in 2003, the Supreme Court of Canada’s first decision on Métis rights. In defence, the accused asserted an aboriginal right to hunt protected by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Hence, the judges had to render a decision on the Métis identity of the accused and his membership in a rights-holding Métis community. The main question at issue then becomes the existence of such a community. In this paper, the authors analyze the concept of “community” as a legal category and as a holder of rights. They highlight the various definitions given to that concept by the Crown and the defence and their implications. This analysis follows the path of anthropological work regarding the concept of “community.”
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.043 | 0.077 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".