The Stolen Generation: Canadian and Australian Approaches to Fiduciary Duties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The key purpose of this article is to critically evaluate the recent Australian decisions in Cubillo & Gunner v. The Commonwealth that considered the fiduciary duties owed by the Commonwealth to the aboriginal claimants. The broader factual basis of the plaintS' causes of action was their removal from their families and subsequent detention as part of what is known as the stolen generation. is contended that it was arbitrary and illogical for the courts to deny equity's applicability to the subject case simply because there was an absence of an economic loss and the facts also gave rise to a tort relationship. It is suggested that the contrary line of authority in Canada is to be preferred. It is also contended that the relevant duties stemming from the Crown's general fiduciary relationship with the aboriginal peoples that arose out of settlement are not confined to protecting aboriginal interests in the extinguishment of aboriginal title. Rather it includes a general duty to act with care in the best interests of the aboriginal peoples. In turn, it is suggested that this duty may also have been breached through the removal and detention of part-aboriginal children.
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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".