Putting Our Minds Together: Aspirations and Implementation of Bill C92, An Act Respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis Children, Youth and Families in Canada
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2020, Bill C92, or an Act Respecting First Nations, Inuit and Metis Children, Youth and Families, came into force in Canada. The Act historically recognized and affirmed Indigenous jurisdiction over child and family services and established national minimal standards for service delivery. In 2024, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the constitutionality of the Act in an appeal from a Quebec Court of Appeal reference case. The Court stressed all parts of the Act must be viewed as “integrated parts of a unified whole” and required the braiding together of Indigenous laws, state laws and international laws into a “single strong rope.” The Act’s aspirations remain in tension with ongoing challenges in implementation. This article outlines the main provisions of the Act. It then examines the law-making efforts and accomplishments of Indigenous governments exercising jurisdiction using the Act, along with some of the hopes and obstacles encountered through this work. Next, it considers some of the emerging jurisprudence interpreting the Act, and some of the implications this case law has on whether the stated purposes of the Act are being achieved. It concludes by highlighting the ongoing uncertainty and hopes for realizing the full potential and aspirations of the Act.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it