Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal of this study is to determine how the individual rights, particularly those enshrined in civil law and the Charter of Rights affect the holistic aspect of the St~:l~ winter dances. The Thomas v. Norris court case is the case study. This court case provides an example of a Canadian court that ruled in favour of individual rights, via civil law, in a case that involved the longhouse of an Aboriginal nation. Eight members of the St~:l~ Nation were interviewed for this study. The role of the Charter of Rights in Aboriginal communities is also included in this study to provide another example of individual rights in Canadian law and to determine the opinions of the interviewees regarding the Charter of Rights. This study describes the holistic nature of the winter dances, including six descriptions of the holism in winter dances by St~:l~ interviewees. Of the four St~:l~ interviewees asked, four agreed that Canadian law has the potential to affect the holistic nature of the winter dances. When asked if the Charter of Rights should be the law governing the St~:l~ longhouses, none of the five St~:l~ interviewees felt that it should be applicable. There was an array of answers from the six interviewees asked whether the Charter of Rights should apply to the St~:l~ Nation as a whole community. This difference in responses between the disapproval of the Charter of Rights being the law that governs the longhouses and the mixed responses given with regard to the Charter of Rights applying to the St~:l~ Nation community suggests that there is a difference in context between the applicability of the Canadian laws to the St~:l~ longhouses as opposed to the St~:l~ Nation community.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.039 | 0.063 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".