Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This chapter provides a review of some of the leading cases on Métis rights and jurisdiction. In terms of rights, the chapter reviews the Powley decision, critiques its determination of Métis identity, and contrasts this with the Métis right to self-determination and membership determination of Métis communities. This chapter also examines the recent Daniels case and the implications of finding that Métis are “Indians” for the purposes of section 91(24) of the Constitution, which is said to allocate power to legislate over Indians to the federal Parliament. The chapter questions this understanding and in particular the plenary nature of section 91(24) as a head of power and argues that it should be understood differently from all the other heads of power allocated between provincial and federal authority under sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution. This chapter also critically examines the definition of Métis adopted by the Supreme Court of Canada in Daniels as overly broad, resulting in problems of Métis identity legitimation and the preference for a race-based definition of Métis Indians as opposed to a political community definition of Métis.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".