Implementing Bill C‐92: Strengthening Indigenous Jurisdiction and Community Resilience in Child Welfare
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article examines the implementation of Bill C‐92: An Act Respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis Children, Youth and Families, which affirms the inherent right of Indigenous Peoples to self‐govern in child and family services. Through qualitative analysis of 11 First Nations laws enacted between 2021 and 2024, the study explores how communities are developing governance structures, ratifying laws, and engaging members in law‐making. Findings reveal diverse models—from Band Council‐led systems to Indigenous Governing Bodies under Section 35 of the Constitution Act—with varying levels of cultural integration and transparency. Five case studies highlight approaches grounded in traditional knowledge, language revitalization, and relational governance. The article discusses tensions between delegated authority under the Indian Act and inherent rights, alongside challenges related to funding and capacity. It concludes with recommendations to strengthen Indigenous‐led governance rooted in Indigenous legal traditions, languages, and community‐defined child and family wellbeing.
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 | 0.015 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".