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 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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.043 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".