<i>Indigenous Peoples and the Future of Federalism</i>, edited by Amy Swiften and Joshua Nichols
Bibliographic record
Abstract
How can the asserted sovereignty of settler states be reconciled with the pre-existing legal and political orders of Indigenous nations in a constitutional relationship that is just and sustainable for future generations? This important question lies at the heart of Indigenous Peoples and the Future of Federalism, which focuses on the Canadian context but also draws insights from other settler colonies. Inspired by Indigenous and Western thought, the contributions collectively offer a compelling critique of the legal foundations of settler sovereignty in Canada and put forward different pathways to address “the incompleteness of Canada’s constitutional framework” (Swiffen and Paget, introductory chapter, p. 4). While their approaches vary, the authors all argue for a renewed relationship grounded in constitutional pluralism and the coexistence of state and Indigenous sovereign authority. The volume is organized into three parts. The first part focuses on Canada. The first three chapters discuss the constraints of the existing constitutional framework and explore possibilities for reshaping Canadian federalism. While James Sa'ke'j Henderson argues in the first chapter for a renewed emphasis on treaty relations, Michael Asch in the second chapter emphasizes the importance of and conditions for mutual consent in a renewed treaty relationship. In the third chapter, Gordon Christie critically assesses and contrasts Canada’s Section 35 rights (Constitution Act, 1982) and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) as legal instruments for asserting Indigenous sovereignty and bringing constitutional pluralism to life in Canada. The author remains skeptical about both.
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 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.003 |
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".