From colonial legacies to promising futures? Unpacking the Daniels v. Canada decision and the future of the Métis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
After years of existing in jurisdictional limbo, the Métis have finally been handed down a Supreme Court declaration affirming that they too, alongside the Inuit and First Nations peoples, fall under the federal government’s jurisdiction over “Indians and Lands reserved for the Indians” as outlined under Section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867. While the April 2016 decision in Daniels v. Canada did remove a significant obstacle for the Métis in the pursuit of rights recognition and meaningful negotiations with the federal government, the decision is worth unpacking. This thesis critically examines the Daniels decision from a Métis and decolonizing lens, and explores the potential outcomes and implications of this decision for the Métis. What this thesis finds that this decision has been achieved by relying on colonial concepts of history, Métis identity, as well as colonial expansionist and assimilationist goals from centuries ago. As for the future of this decision, this thesis finds that it remains largely unsolved, but holds great potential- despite the core of the decision being purely about jurisdiction.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.034 | 0.046 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| 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".