MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3123267429

Negotiations with Métis: What Courts Can Do to Help

2004· article· en· W3123267429 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Shin Imai

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicOmbudsman and Human Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNegotiationMetisDispute resolutionPolitical scienceRepresentation (politics)LawIdentification (biology)Law and economicsSociologyComputer sciencePolitics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The four courts and 14 judges who heard the Powley case all recommended that the Crown enter into negotiations with the Metis. This paper draws on dispute resolution design principles to outline a role for courts that will ensure that negotiations take place. These negotiations should address three important issues: the identification of a Metis community, characteristics of membership and criteria for representation. The author argues that proper prior negotiations, even if they do not result in agreement, can help courts make better decisions on the three issues outlined above.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.052
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.150
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score0.274

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0520.150
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0240.018
Scholarly communication0.0310.042
Open science0.0060.019
Research integrity0.0270.016
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.005

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.264 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicOmbudsman and Human RightsFrench-language works237,207