Understanding Innu normativity in matters of customary “adoption” and custody1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article presents the preliminary results of a research project on customary custody and “adoption” in the Innu community of Uashat mak Mani-Utenam in northeastern Québec. From a legal pluralist perspective, the authors used a biographical method to understand the workings of the ne kupaniem/ne kupanishkuem Innu legal institution, which can be compared in certain respects to adoption in Western legal systems. The authors present certain characteristics of this institution in order to expose the limits of bills that seek to recognize “indigenous customary adoption” in Québec law. Innu “adoption” stems from an agreement between the concerned persons, which can crystallize gradually, which never breaks the original filial link, and which does not immediately create a new filial link. In theory, this type of adoption is not permanent. As such, a Québec law that only recognizes indigenous adoptions that create a new filial link runs the risk of either being ineffective, or of distorting the Innu legal order.
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 | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".