Bibliographic record
Abstract
If Indigenous law is understood at the time of treaty-making, it will reinforce the procedural aspects of dispute resolution through diplomacy and the settlement of “interpretative” difficulties in living within a treaty relationship. The author, who is an Anishinaabe lawyer from Treaty 3, recounts her understanding of how the treaty relationship was to be an experience of using both Indigenous law and principles alongside Canadian law and principles to restore relationships and treaty responsibilities. A Treaty 3 commitment to provide the “Queen’s Government’s ear” to the Anishinaabe treaty partners is explored, along with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to examine if there are ways in law and in relationship to have lasting and co-equal processes to live within Treaty in Canada. The author also uses examples of recent litigation involving Treaty 3 to explain how section 35 treaty rights claims are an ill-suited remedy for living within treaty relationships in Canada.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.053 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 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".