Questions about Questions: Law and Film Reflections on the Duty to Learn
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2015, The Truth and Reconciliation Commission concluded that reconciliation will require new relationships between Canadian and Indigenous legal orders. How are legal professionals to participate in making these new relationships? How might lawyers engage productively with the many different Indigenous legal orders in this land? The article takes up challenges of Reconciliation and the Duty to Learn, with a focus on the place of questions in the process of learning. Stories are one important location for this work. Reflecting on the course Law 343: Inuit Law and Film, I offer some thoughts on cinematic stories as a particularly productive site for legal thinking, with a focus on the place of questions as a technique for building understanding and relationship across difference. Using the film The Journals of Knud Rasmussen (2006), I explore six different questions, and consider the kind of work that one can do with each question. This approach invites us to consider the relations we build through the questions we ask, not of others, but of ourselves. I close with some reflections about steps one might take to act on the obligation to learn, taking up the work of questions in our practices of building relations across legal orders.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".