Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a critical relational analysis of the legal pursuit for Métis hunting rights, and Aboriginal rights in general, by examining the role of the Canadian juridical field in terms of its symbolic power as it determines the rights accorded to Aboriginal groups.The juridical field not only affects how Aboriginal rights are seen, but also how l/ is seen in and through Aboriginal rights disputes.It affects how it is seen by virtue of the fact that the very process of legal determination of Aboriginal rights serves as a symbolic mask that obfuscates the originary violence of the colonial act, as well as the violence inherent in the continued legal maintenance of colonial relations.It does this while simultaneously disguising and safeguarding the arbitrary foundations for judicial power itself.Lastly, the juridical field affects how Aboriginal rights are seen through the recently begun consolidation of a cultural rights discourse of Aboriginality that restricts Aboriginal rights claimants to the colonial gaze's exotic image of a traditional and authentic Aboriginal Other.While monumental cases for Aboriginal rights have been won under the judiciary's most recent approach, this discursive consolidation still does not eliminate the elasticity inherent in judicial interpretation that allows for the arbitrary exercise of power with a daunting finality.This therefore calls for Aboriginal groups to reflect further on their "investment in the garrte" of pursuing Aboriginal rights before the Canadian judiciary.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.001 |
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".