Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, the authors take a critical look at s. 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code and how courts have interpreted it after Ipeelee from a legal pluralism standpoint. They suggest that the interpretation given by the Court opens the way to a form of resistance from the judiciary against the problem of Indigenous over-representation in the criminal justice system and the hegemonic approach of the Canadian state with respect to Indigenous legal orders. However, based on a thorough analysis of 635 decisions rendered after Ipeelee by trial and appellate courts between 2012 and 2015, the authors conclude that this innovative approach was, in turn, met with significant resistance by judges. The authors finally address the main practical and epistemological hurdles that can explain the limited impact of that approach in sentencing and suggest that this resistance could be overcome by promoting judicial innovation as well as the revitalization of Indigenous legal systems.
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 | 0.014 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".