The Métis and the Courts: Interrogating Métis-Focused Supreme Court Decisions in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper is broadly concerned with the politics of the Canadian constitution, with its primary focus being the relationship between the Métis and the Supreme Court of Canada. The Métis are one of three Aboriginal groups in Canada that are officially recognized in the Constitution Act, 1982, along with the First Nations and the Inuit. The Act sparked a new era of Canadian jurisprudence and Indigenous activism through the courts. Despite the hopes of the Métis, major Supreme Court decisions vis-à-vis Métis issues since 1982 have been questionable if not problematic. This paper discusses Métis identity, jurisdiction, equality rights, and the question of Métis title in relation to four Supreme Court decisions. The paper aims to provide an overview of the most pertinent issues and cases in Métis constitutional law, while arguing that Métis-focused Supreme Court decisions have done little to improve the position and status of the Métis people in Canadian society, while some judgements have even undermined them.
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 | 0.026 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".