Les protocoles de consultation autochtones au Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les peuples autochtones au Canada cherchent à développer des outils leur permettant de mieux affirmer leurs droits et d’exercer un certain contrôle sur les processus consultatifs auxquels ils sont assujettis dans le cadre des projets de développement du territoire. Cette affirmation passe notamment par l’adoption de protocoles unilatéraux. Cet article analyse vingt-deux de ces protocoles afin d’en saisir les fondements et les finalités juridiques et politiques et souligne leur nature relationnelle, malgré leur caractère unilatéral. Ils visent en effet à combler le vide entre le droit coutumier autochtone et le droit étatique et international en matière de consultation et de consentement préalable, libre et éclairé, et permettent en ce sens de donner à ces protocoles une portée concrète.
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 | 0.156 | 0.190 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.041 | 0.006 |
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".