Bibliographic record
Abstract
How can Indigenous law-making affect state authority? I examine this in the context of Canada's extractive sector, where I question how and when Indigenous laws prevail over state laws to challenge colonial authority and reassert Indigenous self-determination. Although the state claims supreme authority, Indigenous governments are enacting their own laws, laws that are sometimes in tension with those of the state. I demonstrate that while the state usually responds to contentious Indigenous law-making with conflict, under certain conditions Indigenous communities can incite the state to reverse its position to one of acquiescence or cooperation. By drawing on insights from three Indigenous communities in Canada, I offer four conditions under which Indigenous peoples and governments may be able to compel the state to relent and accrue authority, including by preparing to engage in a long-term project, by fomenting community cohesion, by exploiting evolving international norms related to Indigenous rights, and by offering viable governance alternatives to colonial legislation. By highlighting new sites of authority and resistance, this work underscores the transformative possibilities of Indigenous politics. Une autorité en évolution : pouvoir législatif autochtone et gouvernance publique.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".