El papel de los tribunales en la reivindicación de derechos indígenas. Casos relevantes de la experiencia canadiense
Bibliographic record
Abstract
En este artículo se estudian casos relevantes llevados ante las cortes canadienses por personas indígenas con el objetivo de mostrar el papel de los tribunales en la reivindicación de sus derechos. Además de identificar los problemas que aún enfrentan estas minorías en Canadá relacionados con su identidad y sus derechos de autogobierno, se muestran los mecanismos constitucionales por medio de los cuales se procura remediarlos. Ante el clásico debate entre liberales y comunitaristas acerca de la imposibilidad de lograr la coexistencia cultural plena, este artículo busca resaltar la función de la consulta y la negociación con las naciones originarias como una de las políticas más exitosas de la experiencia canadiense en su búsqueda por afianzar un genuino Estado multicultural
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 | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".