Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this chapter is to explore how the Canadian domestic legal framework for Aboriginal rights could affect the implementation of an access and benefit-sharing regime (ABS) pursuant to the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization (NP). The chapter is divided into the following three sections. First, it briefly summarizes the limitations of the current s. 35 framework and shows how it is grounded on a unilateral notion of Crown sovereignty in which the only claim to Crown legitimacy is derived from the outmoded and racist fiction of discovery. Second, it shows that the Federal Government of Canada’s move to fully endorse UNDRIP and move towards its implementation opens up the opportunity to remove the doctrine of discovery from Canadian law and build a s. 35 framework on a true nation-to-nation basis. Finally, it concludes by exploring how UNDRIP could be used to facilitate a proactive approach to self-determination, which includes control over traditional knowledge and biogenetic resources. This will establish what the necessary pre-conditions are for implementing an effective ABS regime in Canada.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".