A Rights-based Approach to Indigenous Sovereignty, Self-determination and Self-government in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People (UNDRIP) calls for the right to self-determination, as self-determination is a prerequisite for Indigenous people to recongnize their political, social, economic, and collective human rights. Canada has historically been unsupportive of UNDRIP as the federal government considers UNDRIP at odds with Canadian sovereignty and existing Canadian institutions. While the right to self-government is currently protected under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, it is defined narrowly and falls short of allowing meaningful self-government for the majority of Indigenous people. This paper considers the conflicting nature of self-determination and self-government through considering the impact of Indigenous sovereignty on state sovereignity, an analysis of various approaches to self-government in Canada, and the feasability of adopting a rights-based approach to self-government. This paper concludes that utilizing a human rights-based approach to self-government addresses the perceived conflicts at the state-level while providing for the creation of meaningful self-government arrangements. Self-government arrangements must be created by Indigenous communities for Indigenous communities in order to reflect the diverse needs of Indigenous people regardless of their territorial affiliation or formal Indian status.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".