FINDING A PATH TO RECONCILIATION: MANDATORY INDIGENOUS LAW, ANISHINAABE PEDAGOGY, AND ACADEMIC FREEDOM
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission has called on law schools in Canada to make Indigenous law a mandatory component of legal education. In its final report, the Commission provides the outline of a rationale in support of this call to action. This paper builds on that outline by grounding the Commission’s rationale in the jurisprudence on section 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982. Articulating a comprehensive rationale is useful for at least three reasons. First, such a rationale can underpin a response to the claim that a required Indigenous law course lacks value for those students who do not intend to practise Aboriginal law. Second, the format and pedagogy used to teach Indigenous law as a mandatory subject should be informed by the rationale underlying the call to action. Third, this rationale dispels the concern that mandating the study of Indigenous law violates academic freedom.
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 | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".