Bibliographic record
Abstract
This collection of essays is a timely exploration of the progress of Aboriginal rights movements in Canada, Mexico, and the United States. Contributors compare the situations in Canada and Mexico, in both of which demands by Aboriginal people for political autonomy and sovereignty are increasing, and explore why there is little corresponding activity in the United States. The essays address problems of constructing new political arrangements, practical questions about the viability of multiple governments within one political system, and epistemological questions about recognizing and understanding the "other." Contents One Continent, Three Styles: The Canadian Experience in North American Perspective -- Juan D. Lindau and Curtis Cook; A Just Relationship Between Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Peoples of Canada -- James Tully (University of Victoria); Indigenous Movements and Politics in Mexico and Latin America -- Rodolfo Stavenhagen (Colegio de Mexico); Rights and Self-Government for Canada?s Aboriginal Peoples -- C.E.S. Franks (Queen's); Liberalism's Last Stand: Aboriginal Sovereignty and Minority Rights -- Dale Turner (Dartmouth); First Nations and the Derivation of Canada's Underlying Title: Comparing Perspectives on Legal Ideology -- Michael Asch; Quebec?s Conceptions of Aboriginal Rights -- Andrée Lajoie, Hugues Melaçon, Guy Rocher (Université de Montréal) and Richard Janda (McGill), The Revolution of the New Commons -- Gustavo Esteva (Instituto de la Naturaleza y la Sociedad de Oaxaca); Indian Policy: Canada and the United States Compared -- C.E.S. Franks.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".