Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this lecture, the author challenges us to move beyond the cases and statutes that preoccupy lawyers generally and to reach, in the spirit of legal pluralism, for law expressed elsewhere—in oral histories and everyday lives. By weaving indigenous oral and Western scholarly traditions together, he demonstrates the existence of a pluralistic indigenous legal community and argues that conceiving of Canada as a bijuridical country is inherently limiting. Only through a pluralistic, multijuridical framework can we fully respect the place of indigenous legal thinking. It is also essential to recognize that the scope of indigenous law is not limited to Aboriginal communities. Indigenous law is more than just private or Aboriginal community law: it is a part of Canada’s constitutional structure. In fact, both indigenous and non-indigenous peoples benefit from treaty rights. As such, failing to recognize the significance of indigenous law will result in the impoverishment of our understanding of Canadian laws and legal processes. The author builds on this argument to suggest that we can create an even stronger indigenous legal community in Canada. He underscores the importance of committing to John C. Tait’s notion of “dialogue” in building a strong sense of community. By moving in this direction, Canada can be a world leader by recognizing the central role of indigenous law in private law, community law, and—perhaps most importantly—constitutional law.
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 | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.065 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.030 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.002 |
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".