Canada, Genocide of Indigenous peoples and the International Court of Justice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Is it possible for genocide to be committed only by states with totalitarian and authoritarian political regimes? Events and studies in Canada over the past few decades prove the opposite. A wealth of Canadian state documents, witnesses, officials’ confessions, and surveys show that the genocide of Indigenous peoples as the main owners of the land was carried out in a very slow, lethal, and mostly non-lethal manner against this population. The article, while reviewing the facts of the case in the light of case law and related international documents, considers the option of bringing an action against the state of Canada in the International Court of Justice to reiterate to the members of the international community the need for appropriate action. Reconsider their approach to the people under their jurisdiction so that they do not commit genocide as the most heinous international crime, and thus we witness a day without repeating the unbelievable stories of a generation of people trying to destroy other generations.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.034 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".