El papel de los tribunales en la reivindicación de derechos indígenas. Casos relevantes de la experiencia canadiense
Bibliographic record
Abstract
espanolEn este articulo se estudian casos relevantes llevados ante las cortes canadienses por personas indigenas con el objetivo de mostrar el papel de los tribunales en la reivindicacion de sus derechos. Ademas de identificar los problemas que aun enfrentan estas minorias en Canada relacionados con su identidad y sus derechos de autogobierno, se muestran los mecanismos constitucionales por medio de los cuales se procura remediarlos. Ante el clasico debate entre liberales y comunitaristas acerca de la imposibilidad de lograr la coexistencia cultural plena, este articulo busca resaltar la funcion de la consulta y la negociacion con las naciones originarias como una de las politicas mas exitosas de la experiencia canadiense en su busqueda por afianzar un genuino Estado multicultural EnglishThe following paper studies relevant judicial trials presented by Indigenous People before the Canadian courts. It is the intention to point out the courts role in the remedy of Canadian Indigenous People’s rights. Apart from identifying issues still faced by these minorities related to their identity and government, the constitutional mechanisms for correction are described. This paper intents to outline the role of consultation and negotiation, as one of the most successful Canadian policies as to reach a genuine multicultural state
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".