17 Articles 27 and 46(2): UNDRIP Signposts Pointing beyond the Justifiable-infringement Morass of Section 35
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper considers articles 27 and 46(2) of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), in the context of Canadian government promises implement UNDRIP domestically. In particular, I note that article 46(2) echoes much of the language of section 1 of Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a proportionality clause that has been incorporated (by analogy) as a limit on the constitutional protection of Aboriginal and Treaty rights in Canada. Article 46(2) might be used support arguments that the existing Canadian case law on Aboriginal and Treaty rights is already (largely) consistent with UNDRIP. I argue in this paper that such arguments flounder particularly on the procedural requirements of UNDRIP, notably those contained in article 27, which requires states establish, in conjunction with Indigenous peoples, procedures to recognize and adjudicate the rights of indigenous peoples pertaining their lands, territories and resources. I also point specific elements of Canadian case law that could, in the near-term, be developed in a direction tending towards consistency with the requirements of article 27.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.003 |
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".