Bibliographic record
Abstract
The author outlines a new legal approach, which he labels federal constitutionalism, to the \nquestion of aboriginal difference in Canada. This approach has the potential to open up more \nfruitful avenues for the resolution of aboriginal law issues than either the “frozen rights” \napproach currently adopted by the Supreme Court of Canada or the treaty federalism \napproach, which posits that treaties should be used to resolve all differences between aboriginals \nand non-aboriginals. The author outlines the difficulties inherent in both the frozen rights and \ntreaty federalism approaches. Federal constitutionalism, in contrast, draws its vitality from an \norganic understanding of Canada’s constitutional experience. It would allow aboriginal \npeoples to be seen as federal actors who have historically shaped the Canadian federation. \nFederal constitutionalism is a multi-faceted approach that would permit aboriginal questions \nto be addressed using the federal principle, thereby allowing the legal focus to move away from \nsection 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Aboriginal peoples would be able to exercise the \nrights of sovereignty over their own internal affairs, while individual aboriginals could \nparticipate directly in federal and provincial governments without having to proceed through \nthe intermediary of aboriginal representatives. Federal constitutionalism would allow \naboriginal peoples a guaranteed sphere of autonomy, while permitting recognition of their \nhistorical interdependence with non-aboriginal peoples.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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 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".