Eviscerating Historic Treaties: Judicial Reasoning, Settler Colonialism, and ‘Legal’ Exercises of Exclusion
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines the reasoning of Canadian Supreme Court justices in the area of Aboriginal treaty rights, paying particular attention to the Grassy Narrows (2014) decision. By not only engaging with the internal logics contained within treaty rights decisions, but also by further contextualizing the decisions and comparing them to the transcripts of their respective hearings, it provides an additional perspective on the socio‐cultural relations of power inscribed within the legal field. Ultimately, the article demonstrates that members of the Supreme Court have displayed a consistent orientation towards logics predicated upon the absorption and elimination of Indigenous legal perspectives. In fact, what a reading of the hearing transcripts together with the Grassy Narrows decision reveals is a judicial privileging of established property interests and extractive impulses underpinning the settler‐colonial development of the Canadian 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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it