MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W48464655 · doi:10.29173/alr370

Prior Occupation and Schismatic Principles: Toward a Normative Theorization of Aboriginal Title

2015· article· en· W48464655 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Dwight Newman

Bibliographic record

VenueAlberta Law Review · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal principles and applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNormativeJurisprudenceConstitutionProxy (statistics)Law and economicsLawSociologyFunction (biology)Political scienceIdentity (music)Natural (archaeology)Computer scienceGeographyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There are two divergent principles underlying theconstitutional recognition of Aboriginal title in s. 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 the historically-oriented principle of "prior occupation, " and the forward-looking principle of "reconciliation. " A closer look at the principle of "prior occupation " reveals several possible rationales behind its requirement in the test for Aboriginal title: to promote economic efficiency; to ground a natural right of ownership; and to function as a proxy for the protection of individual or group identity. However, each of these rationales fails to adequately respond to both previous jurisprudence in the area and the need to achieve a just and legally sound system for determining future claims. If "prior occupation" is instead understood as a proxy for "community connections to land," then the primary interests at stake are more clearly revealed. It is then possible to develop a principled and more consistent way of dealing with Aboriginal title claims in a way that respects the interests of all involved.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.981
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.061
Scholarly communication0.0070.009
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0050.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.317 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlberta Law ReviewSame topicLegal principles and applicationsFrench-language works237,207