Bibliographic record
Abstract
The debate with respect to the recognition of Indigenous rights, title, and jurisdiction has largely been won. It has now moved to how best to implement those rights, title, and inherent jurisdictions. For Indigenous taxation jurisdiction, implementation must address challenges related to taxpayer representation, concurrent jurisdiction, service agreements with other governments, administrative capacity, financial management, and access to public debt capital at competitive rates. In this article, the author argues that the First Nations Fiscal Management Act (FMA) has been successful in overcoming these challenges. The FMA has protected and expanded Indigenous tax jurisdiction through standards and institutional support. As a result, it represents an effective path for interested Indigenous governments "to exercise [their] inherently governmental power of taxation" affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada in Matsqui Indian Band, and to expand their use of that power.
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 | 0.008 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.031 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.006 |
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".