Customary Law in the Aboriginal Legislation of the Russian Federation and Canada (Comparative Legal Analysis)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The granting of constitutional and legal status to the indigenous peoples of Russia and Canada led to the formation of aboriginal legislation, in which a certain place belongs to the customary law of these peoples. The Canadian experience of involving customary law in aboriginal legislation and its role in protecting the rights of indigenous peoples differs from the Russian aboriginal legislation and is not only of scientific, but also of practical interest. The purpose of the study is to compare the degree of influence of customary law in the process of protecting the rights of indigenous peoples. For this purpose, an analysis and comparison of the law enforcement practice established in Russia and Canada, as well as an analysis of the Canadian approach to customary law and its consequences are carried out. The methodological basis of the study consists of comparative legal, logical, systematic and formal legal methods. The results of the study. Inconsistent law enforcement practice has developed in the Russian Federation. The condition of non-contradiction of the custom to the legislation, as well as the absence of a mechanism for reviewing customs in order to make a decision on the possibility of taking it into account, led to the fact that the provisions on the accounting of customs are not fully applied. The Canadian version of building relations with indigenous peoples, based on the recognition of customary law, its role in establishing the rights of indigenous peoples, led to the development of a kind of “translation” of customary law into modern legal terminology, namely into constitutionally enshrined “existing aboriginal and contractual rights”. This approach allows us to consider customary law and the rights of indigenous peoples as a whole and does not subdivide the rights of indigenous peoples into rights with and without customary law.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".