The Resilience of Métis Title: Rejecting Assumptions of Extinguishment for Métis Land Rights
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Crown long has disputed Metis title claims by contending that any previously existing Metis rights, including title, have been extinguished. We argue, however, that Metis rights, including title, remain unextinguished in at least some areas of the Metis homeland. In this chapter, we review the three means by which Aboriginal rights can be extinguished in Canadian law: by surrender, by legislation prior to April 17, 1982, and by constitutional amendment. When applied to the Metis homeland, we conclude that these means have not effectively extinguished all Metis rights and title. This chapter builds on our previous work, in which we argue that historical Metis land use patterns can satisfy the test for Aboriginal title as set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia. Once the Metis have shown that their occupation of their traditional homeland was sufficient, continuous, and exclusive, the next step is to demonstrate that their title to land has not been extinguished. This chapter takes this next step, and thus further strengthens the argument in support of Metis title.
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 | 0.010 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.075 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".