The Right to Be Heard: Representative Authority as a Requirement in Enforcing Métis Consultation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The challenges that non-settlement Métis communities continue to face when attempting to enforce the duty to consult are reflected in the 2016 Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Fort Chipewyan decision. In Fort Chipewyan, the Court appeared to require representative authority in order to trigger the duty to consult, effectively adding a new step to the Haida test for Aboriginal consultation. This creates a unique burden for non-settlement Métis communities in Alberta, in part because their governance systems are not statutorily recognized in Canadian statute. Nevertheless, a representative authority requirement, if interpreted purposively and in accordance with Indigenous principles of good governance, is justified by the Honour of the Crown. The Métis Nation of Ontario’s approach to consultation governance provides suggestions for governance reforms that could be undertaken by Alberta Métis to more effectively enforce the duty to consult.
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 | 0.053 | 0.088 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".