Locating Oneself in One's Research: Learning and Engaging with Law in the Coast Salish World
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, there has been an increasing awareness of Indigenous legal traditions. Spurred in part by the work of Indigenous and non-Indigenous academics researching in this field of law and the Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which speaks to the importance of recognizing, teaching, and operationalizing Indigenous legal traditions in many of their calls to action, such as Call to Action no. 27, 28, 42, and 50. As a result, Indigenous legal traditions are informing aspects of law school curricula and are being discussed and explored in professional legal training seminars. However, many questions remain as to the most appropriate manner in which to carry out this important work, lest it become yet another avenue of colonizing Indigenous peoples and their legal traditions. In this article, I hope to examine some of these issues with respect to Coast Salish laws and methodology—in particular, the legal tradition of the Hul'qumi'num Mustimuhw, the Island Hul'quminum' people of Vancouver Island, British Columbia. By exploring my own research journey, as a Hul'qumi'num Mustimuhw (“Hul'qumi'num person”), I demonstrate how methodology is the necessary starting point for any individual wishing to understand more fully how to engage in and with the Indigenous legal traditions. It provides an introduction to the worldview, legal institutions, skills and theories of Indigenous peoples, like the Island Hul'qumi'num People. Each legal tradition—Indigenous and non-Indigenous—is complex and must be learned and practised within its proper context over many life times to facilitate social order. One of the goals of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission is to bring about a greater recognition of Indigenous legal traditions and engage with Indigenous laws, according to their own research methodologies; it is one of the first steps forward.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".