MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404066401 · doi:10.32920/27616692

An Empty Shell of a Treaty Promise: R. v. Marshall and the Rights of the Non-Status Indians

2024· preprint· en· W4404066401 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Pamela Palmater

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Labor and Employment Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTreatyShell (structure)Political scienceLawLaw and economicsSociologyEngineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>One of the difficult issues presented by *R. v. Marshall* is that of who is a Mi'kmaq person, or more generally, who is entitled to claim to be a beneficiary of the Treaties of 1760-61. This paper examines a number of possible approaches to this matter, including ones based on residence (on or off reserve), descent, and the terms of the Indian Act. It notes the deficiencies of existing tests and of Canadian case law that has addressed Aboriginal identity in other contexts. It concludes by noting that the negotiations which must follow in the wake of *Marshall* present the opportunity for a new, good faith dialogue to establish the rules for ascertaining First Nations membership.</p>

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.368
Threshold uncertainty score0.956

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.306
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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInternational Labor and Employment LawFrench-language works237,207