Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet ouvrage montre que le régime juridique d’origine britannique relatif aux peuples autochtones pose des défis singuliers et trouve des applications particulières en contexte québécois. Il en est ainsi, notamment parce que les effets de ce régime sont à certains égards tributaires du fait colonial français que l’a précédé. Autre legs de la France, le droit civil régit les relations entre Autochtones et non-Autochtones d’une manière qui distingue le Québec des provinces où s’applique la common law. De même, les relations entre l’État et les peuples premiers ont parfois emprunté une trajectoire propre au Québec, ce qui se manifeste particulièrement dans la Convention de la Baie-James et du Nord québécois et dans le débat juridique sur l’indépendance du Québec. Tous ces sujets sont analysés en profondeur dans ce livre, destiné principalement aux juristes – praticiens, administrateurs ou universitaires – qui souhaitent mieux comprendre la différence québécoise en matière de droits des peuples autochtones.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.001 |
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".