Section 15: How Indigenous Use of the Charter Tool is About Returning to Respect Not Creating Equity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Some Canadians view the concept of freedom in relation to government involvement differently, particularly when government presence is seen as oppressive or colonizing. While Indigenous communities in Canada may not always view the current governance structure as reflective of their own traditions, they recognize the necessity of using it to navigate challenges. Indigenous groups utilize section 15 to address inequalities that stem from historical colonialism, seeking to restore balance in a manner consistent with pre-colonial ideals. Prior to the repatriation of the constitution, attempts to address equity issues through the legal system were often met with limited success, prompting Indigenous women in Canada to take their gender equity concerns to the United Nations with respect to the Indian Act. Following the repatriation, section 15 has provided a platform for Indigenous peoples to address policies and laws that unfairly disadvantage certain groups in comparison to others, thereby promoting fair treatment from the government. This discussion aims to explore how Indigenous communities utilize Section 15 as a tool to address issues of unequal treatment and advocate for equity that aligns with traditional pre-colonial values.
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 | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.042 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".