Understanding Choices of Legal Forms: Empirical Evidence From Private Indigenous Businesses in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study takes up the challenge of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Report Call to Action 27 to provide “appropriate cultural competency training” for lawyers dealing with Indigenous persons. Specifically, we look at how private Indigenous business owners take up private law forms of business organization, namely: sole proprietorship, partnership, and corporation. We use survey data from representative samples of Indigenous entrepreneurs in Canada in 2010 and 2015, and we also employ the report of the 2020 Ontario Aboriginal Business Survey developed by the Canadian Council for Aboriginal Business. Findings reveal that Indigenous entrepreneurs’ higher education levels, business training and experience, as well as the age and size of the business positively influence the selection of the corporation legal form of business. Business location on a reserve has a positive influence on the selection of sole proprietorship or partnership forms. These conclusions, based on empirical evidence, answer a need identified in the study of Indigenous business enterprises and allow legal practitioners to understand the reasons why private Indigenous entrepreneurs prefer one form of legal business organization over others.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".