Beyond Charter Applicability: Exploring Challenges and Opportunities for Indigenous Jurisdiction in McCarthy v. Whitefish Lake First Nation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Karen McCarthy and Lorna Jackson-Littlewolfe v. Whitefish Lake First Nation #128 case develops doctrine in two related areas in Aboriginal law. One area is the nature of the relationship between Aboriginal governments and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, including the relevance of the question of the source of self-government authority (delegated, constitutional, or inherency) to the application of the Charter. The second area of development flows from the first. It relates to the application of section 25 — specifically, what categories of rights are included in the protection of section 25 and the parameters of its “shielding” function in the context of a challenge to an internal restriction by a member of a self-governing First Nation. The development of doctrine in this area is needed. However, there are concerns about how the courts are moving to apply section 32(1) to Indigenous governments from the perspective of constitutional reconciliation. This concern corresponds to further issues regarding the application of section 25 and the question of the relationship between the Charter and Indigenous jurisdiction more generally. This comment explores these issues in the context of the case.
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 | 0.019 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".