Indigenous Rights and Relations with Animals: Seeing Beyond Canadian Law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canadian Perspectives on Animals and the Law provides an important new contribution to the debate on the legal status and treatment of animals in Canada. Twelve chapters by leading academics and practising lawyers address a range of doctrinal and conceptual questions, situating legal analysis in the broader context of ethical and philosophical debate about justice in human-animal relationships. Topics addressed include the Ikea monkey case, key shortcomings in Canada’s animal cruelty law, the relationship between animal rights and the rights of Canada’s indigenous peoples, and the emergence of animal protection in international law. This volume should be invaluable for scholars, practitioners and students eager to explore these matters in greater depth, and an excellent resource for law school courses on animals and the law.\nThis chapter considers what is emphasized through Canadian jurisprudence and legal instruments about Indigenous peoples and animals, as well as what is often sidelined or rendered invisible in those mediums. Its golden thread is an attentiveness to instances where laws or legal decisions reach toward a more complete perspective on Indigenous-animal relations, and to how such instruments also obscure and distort. The chapter starts with historic treaties, ends with contemporary Inuit legislation, and considers constitutional litigation and Indigenous ontology along the way. The chapter also suggests that conversations over how Indigenous peoples relate with animals must consider how political and legal power is generated and authenticated, along with the potential of Indigenous legal traditions. The conversation is about far more than finding a productive way to discuss cultural difference.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.042 | 0.044 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".