MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401019447 · doi:10.29173/alr2776

Unsettling the Royal Proclamation of 1763: A Substantive Analysis of Section 25 of the Charter

2024· article· en· W4401019447 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
James Collie

Bibliographic record

VenueAlberta Law Review · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMulticultural Socio-Legal Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProclamationCharterLawJurisprudencePolitical scienceSection (typography)Bill of rightsHuman rightsLegislative historySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has a significant impact on rights discourses in Canada. Section 25 of the Charter protects Aboriginal rights from infringements of the rights and freedoms endorsed elsewhere in the Charter. Section 25 also protects and codifies rights created by the Royal Proclamation of 1763. Despite this inclusion, Royal Proclamation rights have remained relatively undefined in the history of the Crown- Indigenous relationship. In this article, I investigate the content of Proclamation-based Aboriginal rights protected by section 25 by focusing on the Proclamation, the legislative development of section 25, and recent jurisprudence of section 25. I then take these insights and apply them to two recent Aboriginal rights cases: Rice v. Agence du revenu du Québec and Restoule v. Canada. In doing so, I problematize the argument of section 25 as a savings provision and argue that there is a disconnect created by section 25, as the legislative intent of these rights was for their content to be determined at a later date, and yet, they never were determined. Accordingly, if the settled interpretation of the Proclamation were to become unsettled, there could be an expansion of Aboriginal rights within Canada.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.861
Threshold uncertainty score0.970

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.294 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlberta Law ReviewSame topicMulticultural Socio-Legal StudiesFrench-language works237,207