MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3127846063 · doi:10.29173/alr2612

Rethinking “Duty”: The City of Toronto, A Stretch of the Humber River and Indigenous-Municipal Relationships

2020· article· en· W3127846063 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Doug Anderson, Alexandra Flynn

Bibliographic record

VenueAlberta Law Review · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousDutySociologyGeographyPolitical scienceEnvironmental planningLawEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As urban centres are increasingly the predominant sites of human activity, neglect of Indigenous-municipal relationships has far reaching consequences affecting all our lives. This article asks how cities, in their relationships with Indigenous people, can look beyond uncertainty about their existing legal obligations to build relationships that may serve as the basis for subsequent legal agreements. The article focuses on activities led by Indigenous people taking place in an urban park space in Toronto. It examines the municipal government’s response and its more recent approach to relationship building, arguing that recognition of Indigenous law is necessary for an Indigenous-municipal relationship centred on reconciliation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.988
Threshold uncertainty score0.807

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.056
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlberta Law ReviewSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207