Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this provocative and passionate book, Dan Russell outlines the history of Aboriginal self-government in Canada. He compares it to that of the United States, where, for over 150 years, tribes have practised self-government -- domestic dependent nationhood. Russell provides specific examples of how those institutions of government operate, and eloquently explains, from an Aboriginal perspective, what his people hope to achieve through self-governing authority. After describing rights theory, Russell locates Aboriginal self-government as a cultural right, and illustrates how the entitlements of Aboriginal women, an Aboriginal ethic, and collective rights, which are protected by self-governance, may conflict with the Canadian Charter of Rights. A People's Dream is a persuasive examination of how treaty-making in Canada, in particular the 1998 Nisga’a Treaty, has been used as a tool for achieving self-government, but why this approach should be avoided. As well, Russell examines recommendations by the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples and provides an enlightening comparison of those recommendations with the terms of the 1992 Charlottetown Accord.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.008 |
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".