Equality, Self-determination, Administrative Discretion: Lessons from the Implementation of Jordan Principles in Two Provinces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada has an obligation to implement Jordan’s Principle in a way that achieves both substantive equality and self-determination. Both these principles require an approach that centres the full participation of First Nations, supports the development and provision of services tailored to culture and context, and enables differentiation across families and Nations. Canada’s implementation of Jordan’s Principle has relied so heavily on federal employees’ use of administrative discretion that it has side-stepped the resource-intensive requirements of self-determination and substantive equality. Some use of administrative discretion is necessary to accommodate the diverse needs and context addressed by Jordan’s Principle. However, excessive reliance on administrative discretion reproduces pre-existing, colonial power relations. Implementation of Jordan’s Principle in keeping with the principles of self-determination and substantive equality requires: remedying the known gaps in existing policies and funding models that are being addressed through Jordan’s Principle; providing First Nations with timely access to meaningful information about what can be funded through Jordan’s Principle; ensuring that Jordan’s Principle funding is extended on timelines and at levels that allow First Nations to take on responsibilities in tandem with their self-determined priorities; and ensuring First Nations’ involvement in all levels of Jordan’s Principle decision-making. Le Canada a l'obligation de mettre en œuvre le principe de Jordan de manière à réaliser à la fois l'égalité réelle et l'autodétermination. Ces deux principes requièrent une approche qui privilégie la pleine participation des Premières Nations, soutient le développement et la prestation de services adaptés à la culture et au contexte, et permet la différenciation entre les familles et les nations. La mise en œuvre du principe de Jordan par le Canada s'est tellement appuyée sur l'utilisation du pouvoir discrétionnaire des fonctionnaires fédéraux qu'elle a éludé les exigences d'autodétermination et d'égalité réelle, qui nécessitent beaucoup de ressources. Un certain recours au pouvoir discrétionnaire de l'administration est nécessaire pour répondre aux divers besoins et contextes visés par le principe de Jordan. Cependant, un recours excessif au pouvoir discrétionnaire administratif reproduit les relations de pouvoir coloniales préexistantes. La mise en œuvre du principe de Jordan dans le respect des principes d'autodétermination et d'égalité réelle exige de : combler les lacunes connues dans les politiques et les modèles de financement existants qui sont abordés dans le cadre du principe de Jordan ; fournir aux Premières Nations un accès opportun à des informations pertinentes sur ce qui peut être financé dans le cadre du principe de Jordan ; veiller à ce que le financement du principe de Jordan soit étendu dans des délais et à des niveaux qui permettent aux Premières Nations d'assumer des responsabilités en tandem avec leurs priorités autodéterminées ; et assurer la participation des Premières Nations à tous les niveaux de la prise de décision dans le cadre du principe de Jordan.
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 | 0.014 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.040 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".