Canada’s Response to Mi’kmaq Aboriginal and Treaty Fishing Rights: Reconciliation or Legal Colonial Oppression?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In 1999, the Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that the Treaties of 1760–1761 provided the Mi’kmaq, Wolastoqey, and Passamaquoddy Indige-nous peoples with the right to fish to earn a moderate livelihood. Today, 23 years later, such treaty rights remain unimplemented by Canada. This situ-ation has created significant conflict and violence for Indigenous people who attempt to exercise such rights. This article examines the various rea-sons why such rights have remained unimplemented by Canada, and con-siders Canada’s legislative and policy responses to such rights under the scope of their statutory authority, the common law and Canada’s legal du-ties owed to Aboriginal peoples.
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 | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.030 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| 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".