La relativite de la souverainete de jure au Canada, 1600–2018 (The Relativity of De Jure Sovereignty in Canada, 1600–2018)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines European assertions of sovereignty in what is now Canada by distinguishing between de facto and de jure sovereignty. De facto sovereignty requires actual exercise of authority in a territory, whereas de jure sovereignty is an abstract concept that depends on the application of a specific legal system. De jure sovereignty is relative because, while it may be valid in one legal system, it is not necessarily valid in other legal systems. A choice of law question is therefore involved that raises an issue of legitimacy. The paper concludes that, although Canada has de facto sovereignty over its territory today, its claim to de jure sovereignty lacks legitimacy as long as it is not acknowledged by Indigenous legal systems.\nCe texte examine les affirmations européennes de souveraineté sur le territoire aujourd’hui connu sous le nom de Canada en établissant une distinction entre les notions de souveraineté de facto et de jure. La souveraineté de fait requiert l’exercice d’une autorité effective sur un territoire, tandis que la souveraineté de jure est un concept abstrait et relatif, puisqu’il dépend en fait du choix d’appliquer un système juridique plutôt qu'un autre. Ce choix est en essence normatif, car il fait intervenir une question de légitimité. À la lumière de ce qui précède, l’auteur conclut que bien que le Canada possède aujourd’hui la souveraineté de fait sur son territoire, la souveraineté de jure qu’il prétend détenir affiche en réalité un déficit de légitimité, dans la mesure où celle-ci n’est pas reconnue au sein des systèmes juridiques autochtones.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".