Two Too Many Solitudes: First Nations Employment Law and the Unintended Effects of Wilson on Indigenous Employers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Disputes over legal jurisdiction in Canada predate its own Constitution. Even after the 1982 repatriation of the Constitution, First Nations governance remains entangled in a jurisdictional divide. In the spirit of Indigenous self-determination, this article argues the impracticality of First Nations regulating themselves according to federal employment standards under the Canada Labour Code in preference of provincial or territorial standards. A review of jurisprudence since NIL/TU,O underscores the inconsistency of trial division and appellate courts across Canada in determining the appropriate jurisdiction for employment-law issues in First Nations communities. This incoherence leaves First Nations communities in a precarious position in regulating employment. An employer’s ability to consistently depend on the provincial and territorial regimes is imperative given the innumerable barriers already facing First Nations communities, particularly in an area of law where federal regulation is increasingly convoluted, demonstrated for example, by the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada in Wilson. Counter-intuitive as it may seem, the otherwise far more generous federal employment standards have the effect of eroding the autonomy necessary for First Nations’ self-determination.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| 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".