MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4378982852 · doi:10.1163/22116001-03701007

Canada’s Response to Mi’kmaq Aboriginal and Treaty Fishing Rights: Reconciliation or Legal Colonial Oppression?

2023· article· en· W4378982852 on OpenAlex
Rosalie Francis

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueOcean Yearbook Online · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousPolitical scienceTreatyOppressionLawColonialismSupreme courtStatutory lawLegislatureInjusticeLivelihoodHuman rightsPoliticsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.393
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.350 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it