La giustizia riparativa canadese e i diritti degli aborigeni: il rescue interstitial federalism e la sovranita della Corona
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper seeks to investigate the dilemma of aboriginal rights in Canada from a different perspective. In fact, even though many studies exist in matter of the aboriginal “quest” not the same may be argued related to the role of federalism in the accommodation of aboriginal interests and claims. Drawing on the jurisprudence of the Canadian Supreme Court on the duty to consult and the aboriginal land claims, this paper aim at providing a different perspective on the evolution of the Canadian constitutional order relating to aboriginal interests. Thus, the interrelation between sovereignty - federalism - constitutional law is under the spotlight with the need to accommodate aboriginal claims; to this regard, the federal toolkit seems to offer viable options in order to legitimate the asserted sovereignty of the Crown. For this reason, it is argued that, with this specific purpose, Canada is witnessing an “interstitial and rescue” federalism.
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.
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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it