Indigenous peoples’ rights and the multicultural approach: For a twin-track dialogue between Canada and the Inter-American Human Rights System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article addresses the importance of a twin-track dialogue between Canada and the Inter-American Human Rights System (IAHRS), particularly with regards to the rights of Indigenous peoples. It describes how Canada has engaged with the IAHRS as a major financial and diplomatic supporter, while at the same time resisting full adherence to American Convention on Human Rights, its protocols and other regional instruments. The article also examines the influence that Canada’s multicultural approach of addressing national and ethnical differences has had in Latin America and in the IAHRS standards on the rights of Indigenous peoples. Finally, it maintains that the IAHRS has acknowledged states’ obligations that could inspire Canadian efforts to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and reconcile with Indigenous nations.
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 | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.051 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".