Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 2003 Powley judicial discovery and recognition of a new “Métis” community far from the Métis Nation homeland usurped the historic prerogative of the executive to recognize a new Aboriginal people and is not warranted by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 which contemplates political negotiations. The invention of a distinct test for proof of Métis rights was unnecessary and created doctrinal uncertainty and unfairness. This article reflects on changes to Aboriginal rights doctrine that would limit the judicial role to the determination of the local rights of local communities, while recognizing that the determination of national interests and rights ought to be left to constitutionally-mandated negotiations between Canada and each Aboriginal nation or people. A fair doctrine would adopt one date instead of the current three dates for proof of the various rights of any and all the Aboriginal peoples, without regard to their particular self-naming practices.
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 | 0.024 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.058 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.021 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".