Reconciliation and the Constitution: A Transcript of the Roundtable
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As described in the opening piece in this Volume of the Supreme Court Law Review, unprecedented national media and political attention was given to the relationship between Indigenous people and the Canadian state in 2016. As part of our conference, we asked a group of people to come together and talk about the future of the Constitution as a means or an obstacle to reconciliation with Indigenous peoples and First Nations in Canada. Amnesty International’s most recent global report on the State of the World’s Human Rights praised Canada’s action regarding refugees, but then noted that “[c]oncerns persisted about the failure to uphold the rights of Indigenous Peoples in the face of economic development projects”. We asked our panelists about the connection between the rhetoric of reconciliation and the situation on the ground. Would the Court continue to play a significant role in the development of section 35 Aboriginal rights? Are these discussions likely to play out in courts, at constitutional amendment conferences, or in the political arena?
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 | 0.034 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.024 | 0.036 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".