Issue 2: A Human Right to Self-Government over First Nations Child and Family Services and Beyond: Implications of the Caring Society Case
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On 26 January 2016, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal released a watershed decision in First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada et al v Attorney General (Caring Society), finding that the Department of Indigenous and Northern Affairs’ (INAC) design, management, and control of child welfare services on reserve, along with its funding formulas, cause a number of harms to First Nations children and families that amount to discrimination. A full appreciation of the workings and harms of INAC’s First Nations Child and Family Services Program (the FNCFS Program), paired with the two key propositions from the tribunal’s decision—that, as a matter of human rights: (1) First Nations are entitled to child and family services that meet their cultural, historical, and geographical needs and circumstances, and (2) such services cannot be assimilative in design or effect—firmly ground an argument that First Nations have a human right to self-government over child and family services. Moreover, because the main structural features and harms of the FNCFS Program are common to virtually all other essential service programs on reserve, the final implication of the Caring Society case is that a human right to self-government likely extends to all First Nations essential services.
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 | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.030 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.032 | 0.025 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".