An Indigenous court in S'ólh Téméxw: a transferability assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There have been several Indigenous initiatives established in response to the overrepresentation of Indigenous people in the justice system and to deliver culturally appropriate services (Government of Canada, 2016, para. 7). Although there are two Indigenous initiatives in Chilliwack, including the Native Courtworker and Counselling Association of BC and Qwí:qwelstóm Wellness, there are still gaps in connecting Indigenous people involved in the court system to community-based justice and wellness services. In 2018, Qwí:qwelstóm Wellness hosted a meeting and invited former Chief Judge Thomas Crabtree to present on the purpose of an Indigenous court and the feasibility of establishing a court in Chilliwack. When the proposed initiative was presented to the Stó:lō political leadership, they requested additional information, including the potential risks of having an Indigenous court in Chilliwack and assessing the transferability of existing models and practices to the proposed court in Chilliwack. A transferability assessment was undertaken to determine the extent to which practices from Indigenous court models found in British Columbia could be transferred to a proposed Indigenous court in Chilliwack. Qualitative research for this Major Paper was completed through interviews with the participants who have roles within Stó:lō Nation and some existing Indigenous courts. There are six common aspects of Indigenous courts that are believed to be essential to their success, including the inclusion of local Indigenous culture, the Elders’ role, the victim’s role, the strengthening of relationships between the court and the Indigenous community, the clients’ greater and easier access to community resources, and the consideration of Gladue principles. This major paper presents a transferability analysis and offers suggestions for consideration during the establishment of an Indigenous court in S’ólh Téméxw.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.116 | 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 teacher head, 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".