MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2767019162 · doi:10.5663/aps.v6i2.28241

Aboriginal Rights Litigation, Negotiation, and Practice among the Metis of BC: Community Perspectives on Creating Legal Change

2017· article· en· W2767019162 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Kerry Sloan

Bibliographic record

Venueaboriginal policy studies · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsSocial Sciences and Humanities Research CouncilMcGill UniversityUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetisNegotiationContext (archaeology)Political scienceLawGeographyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines the perspectives of Metis people in the southern BC interior about how to deal with the rejection by the courts of all three Metis rights claims in the province. The perspectives of those directly involved in the three cases, along with community members in the subject areas (Thompson/Shuswap, south Okanagan, Kootenays) reveal that people generally prefer negotiation to litigation in the BC context, as lack of understanding of Metis history, territories and communities in BC creates difficulties for BC Metis litigants. Negotiation was viewed favourably by participants, but continuing to practise rights was seen as more important than gaining state recognition of rights.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.550
Threshold uncertainty score0.968

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0330.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.057
GPT teacher head0.445
Teacher spread0.388 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueaboriginal policy studiesSame topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207