Creative and Responsive Advocacy for Reconciliation: The Application of Gladue Principles in Administrative Law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As a response to the estrangement and alienation of Indigenous peoples from the Canadian justice system, Gladue principles are central to reconciliation in sentencing and other criminal law contexts. However, the role of Gladue principles in administrative law more broadly remains uncertain. In this paper, I argue that the factors underlying Indigenous peoples’ estrangement and alienation from the justice system indicate estrangement and alienation from the administrative state itself, and thus Gladue principles appropriately apply in administrative law contexts. Using the results of a comprehensive search of reported decisions by tribunals and by courts on judicial review, I analyze the reasons given by administrative decision-makers and judges for applying or declining to apply Gladue principles. I argue based on this analysis that Gladue principles will most clearly apply in decisions about a penalty or a benefit for an Indigenous person, and can also apply—albeit in a way that requires more creativity—where the decision is about neither a penalty nor a benefit. On this basis, I provide recommendations for counsel, administrative decision-makers, judges, legislators, and executive authorities to better realize the potential of Gladue principles.
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 | 0.054 | 0.074 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.060 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 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".