Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article is part of a special edition critically re-writing Aboriginal rights judgments in Canada as an imagined Indigenous Nations Court. It is set up as a reference question, considering whether this Court ought to adopt and apply the ratio in Racine v Woods, which has been a binding precedent on Canadian courts for thirty-seven years, as part of its best interests of the child analysis. Racine v Woods ratio, that the importance of culture, as opposed to bonding, fades with time, has remained incredibly influential in the best interests of the child analysis in Canada. It has far outlasted Leticia Wood’s adoption, which broke down in her early teenage years. It remains a binding precedent through the findings of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada and Brown v Canada as well as decades of social science research, Indigenous advocacy, and publicly-shared personal experiences of now adult Indigenous adoptees, which all point to its folly. In recent years, there has been increasing recognition that Indigenous legal traditions are part of Canadian law. In January, 2020, An Act Respecting First Nations, Inuit and Metis Children, Youth and Families, SC 2019, c 24, which introduced a new best interests of the Indigenous child analysis and affirmed inherent Indigenous jurisdiction over child and family services as an Aboriginal right, came into force. The conclusion to this reference question is that Racine v Woods ought not be applied in the best interests of the Indigenous child analysis, as it is counter to both Indigenous legal principles and current attachment research, unnecessary due to evolving family law legal options, and incongruent with the new Act.
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 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.022 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.003 |
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".