Ending Piecemeal Recognition of Indigenous Nationhood and Jurisdiction: Returning RCAP’s Aboriginal Nation Recognition and Government Act
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most Indigenous groups in Canada are not self-governing. While the last two decades have seen an increase in laws and policies that provide some Indigenous groups greater control over their territories and citizens, overall these have been ineffective in achieving transformative change. What has transpired in Canada over the last twenty years can be characterized as ‘piecemeal recognition’—discrete recognition of Indigenous control here and there in a case, policy or statute—and implemented in a patchwork fashion. In 1996 the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples report advanced a very reasonable proposal for national legislation recognizing the right of Indigenous peoples to organize themselves collectively and govern themselves in core areas of jurisdiction as they see fit. It also mandated the provision of adequate funding and resources for capacity building in order to ensure successful implementation. This paper argues that it is time for Canada to discard its piecemeal approach to self-government and return to RCAP’s proposal to implement national legislation modelled on the Recognition and Governance Act as one of the first of many steps in transforming the relationship between Canada and Indigenous peoples.
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 | 0.019 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.019 | 0.020 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".