Bibliographic record
Abstract
The metaphor of Justice McEachern - the trial judge in the famous Aboriginal title case Delgamuukw—and his “tin ear” is useful in describing the disconnect between settler law and Aboriginal ways of life. We have seen this tin ear time and again in our legal system, whether it’s the inability of Canadian evidentiary laws to accept oral Indigenous evidence or the difficulty judges have in applying Gladue principles to the sentencing of Aboriginal offenders. We have seen it in the reluctance of courts to recognize Aboriginal spirituality under the Charter and in the narrow framing of section 35 of the Constitution, a framing that has only reaffirmed the settler belief that Indigenous peoples are “‘once-upon-a-time’ groups that can only occupy a very narrow space in contemporary democracies.” John Borrows new book, Freedom & Indigenous Constitutionalism, explores the quest for freedom (dibenindizowin) and a good life (mino-bimaadiziwin) for Indigenous peoples in Canada, and what stands in the way of achieving it. As Borrows explains, freedom is not just the “absence of coercion or constraint.” It is the ability, alongside others, to “choose, create, resist, reject, and change laws and policies that affect your life.” Unsurprisingly, one of the main barriers is the law’s continued inability to attune itself to Indigenous values, wishes, and beliefs. At every turn, Canadian-European legal traditions have remained inattentive— and sometimes even indifferent—when Indigenous peoples have fought for freedom. We once again see the tin ear of the law. Borrows’ book is a careful call to arms; a thoughtful manifesto on how to resist, litigate, protest, and educate in search of a space where Indigenous peoples may live freely and pursue a good life most in line with their own dreams and aspirations.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| 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".