MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7016931518

Aboriginal Governments and the Charter: Lessons from the United States

2002· article· en· W7016931518 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueeYLS (Yale Law School) · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGovernment (linguistics)Agency (philosophy)Public policyIndigenousWork (physics)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Note that s.32(1)(a) of the Charter provides that it applies "to the Parliament and government of Canada in respect of all matters within the authority of Parliament including all matters relating to the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories".Given that the Constitution is a "living tree" that has to be interpreted so as to apply in contemporary contexts (Edwards v. Canada (A.G.) [1930] A.C. 124 at 136 (P.C.)), the courts would probably hold the Nunavut Government to be subject to the Charter, as are the governments of the Yukon and Northwest Territories.This issue is discussed in Emerging Justice?, supra note 2, where it is concluded that the Charter does not apply to these governments.For other perspectives, see P. W. Hogg and M.E.Turpel, "Implementing Aboriginal Self-Government: Constitutional and Jurisdictional Issues" in Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, Aboriginal Self-Government: Legal and Constitutional Issues (Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services, 1995) 375 at 415-20; J. Koshan, "Aboriginal Women, Justice and the Charter: Bridging the Divide?" (1998) 32 U.B.C.L. Rev. 23; P. Macklem, Indigenous Difference and the Constitution of Canada (Toronto:

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.740
Threshold uncertainty score0.523

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0150.017
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.274 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeYLS (Yale Law School)→Same topicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights→French-language works237,207→