Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans la presente etude, l’auteur se penche sur differentes questions relatives aux sources des droits ancestraux des peuples autochtones. Il releve d’abord l’incertitude persistante quant a la source de ces droits au Quebec avant 1982. Il etudie ensuite la jurisprudence de la Cour supreme du Canada dans le but de circonscrire le role joue par les regimes juridiques autochtones d’origine precoloniale dans la definition des droits ancestraux reconnus par la common law et l’article 35 (1) de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982. Il ressort de son analyse que, meme si la plus haute juridiction canadienne affirme que les droits ancestraux tirent leur origine en partie des regimes autochtones preexistants, elle n’applique pas le principe de continuite selon lequel le droit etatique ne ferait que maintenir en vigueur le droit autochtone precolonial. Ainsi, lorsqu’elle definit le contenu des droits ancestraux et leurs conditions d’existence, la Cour supreme ne donne pas simplement effet aux prescriptions du droit coutumier autochtone, mais elle elabore plutot un ensemble de regles qu’elle presente comme le produit d’un metissage des cultures juridiques occidentale et autochtone. En revanche, le groupe autochtone etant titulaire lui-meme d’un droit ancestral, il lui revient d’en etablir les conditions et modalites d’exercice. Le droit autochtone issu de cette autonomie normative constitue la source exclusive des droits individuels des membres de la communaute. Si le groupe exerce ainsi un pouvoir considerable sur l’individu, il ne peut aller a l’encontre des droits fondamentaux de la personne qui sont une dimension essentielle de l’organisation juridique canadienne.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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; 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".