MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7020017351

Jurisdiction Devolution: An Interim Transitional Arrangement on the Road to Indigenous Self-Government

2024· article· en· W7020017351 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueeYLS (Yale Law School) · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Peoples' Rights and Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousJurisdictionDevolution (biology)Government (linguistics)InterimState (computer science)Entitlement (fair division)NegotiationFederal jurisdiction
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Indigenous self-government is a key component of reconciliation between Canada and Indigenous Nations. The negotiation of self-government agreements and exercise of self-government should occur on Indigenous Peoples’ own terms. Negotiations, however, can be lengthy. There are more immediate power-sharing alternatives. These include recognition legislation, where federal and provincial governments recognize Indigenous Peoples’ inherent right to self-government over certain affairs, thus creating space for Indigenous Nations to exercise their inherent self-government rights. They also include jurisdictional devolution, a fuller form of delegation, which might include law-making and enforcement powers. This latter option is “somewhat unpalatable” because the source of the governance powers comes from the delegating federal or provincial government and not an inherent right, but it beneficially allows Indigenous communities to exercise self-government immediately. I argue that jurisdictional devolution must not be thought of as the destination on the road to Indigenous self-government, but rather as a transitional point, which might broaden and deepen the exercise of Indigenous self-government. First, I define the recognition and delegation models and situate jurisdictional devolution in relation to them. Second, I argue that the existence of jurisdictional devolution, recognition, and treaties demonstrates a spectrum of jurisdiction sharing between federal and provincial governments and Indigenous Nations. All three reveal the importance of the relationship between the state and Indigenous Nations as they exercise self-government. Third, I argue that jurisdictional devolution can give rise to practical constraints which may be difficult for federal and provincial governments to displace and evolve into a constitutional convention, therefore placing effective limits on federal and provincial governments’ ability to displace it. Jurisdictional devolution has the capacity to entrench Indigenous jurisdiction and can create momentum to negotiate treaties or implement recognition legislation. L’autonomie gouvernementale des autochtones est un élément clé de la réconciliation entre le Canada et les nations autochtones. La négociation des accords d’autonomie et l’exercice de l’autonomie doivent se faire selon les propres conditions des peuples autochtones. Les négociations peuvent toutefois être longues. Il existe des solutions plus immédiates pour le partage du pouvoir. Il s’agit notamment de la législation de reconnaissance, dans laquelle les gouvernements fédéral et provinciaux reconnaissent le droit inhérent des peuples autochtones à l’autonomie dans certains domaines, créant ainsi un espace permettant aux nations autochtones d’exercer leurs droits inhérents à l’autonomie. Il y a aussi le transfert de compétences, une forme plus complète de délégation, qui pourrait inclure des pouvoirs législatifs et d’exécution. Cette dernière option est « quelque peu désagréable » parce que les pouvoirs de gouvernance proviennent du gouvernement fédéral ou provincial délégant et non d’un droit inhérent, mais elle permet aux communautés autochtones d’exercer immédiatement leur autonomie gouvernementale. Je soutiens que le transfert de compétences ne doit pas être considéré comme la destination sur la voie de l’autonomie gouvernementale autochtone, mais plutôt comme un point de transition susceptible d’élargir et d’approfondir l’exercice de l’autonomie gouvernementale autochtone. Tout d’abord, je définis les modèles de reconnaissance et de délégation et je situe le transfert de compétences par rapport à eux. Ensuite, je soutiens que l’existence du transfert de compétences, de la reconnaissance et des traités démontre un éventail de partage des compétences entre les gouvernements fédéral et provinciaux. Ces trois éléments révèlent l’importance de la relation entre l’État et les nations autochtones dans l’exercice de l’autonomie gouvernementale. Troisièmement, je soutiens que le transfert de compétences peut donner lieu à des contraintes pratiques qu’il peut être difficile pour les gouvernements fédéral et provinciaux de déplacer et de transformer en convention constitutionnelle, limitant ainsi efficacement la capacité des gouvernements fédéral et provinciaux à le déplacer. Le transfert de compétences a la capacité d’ancrer la compétence autochtone et peut créer une dynamique pour négocier des traités ou mettre en œuvre une législation de reconnaissance.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.116

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0120.025
Scholarly communication0.0110.013
Open science0.0020.015
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.274
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeYLS (Yale Law School)Same topicIndigenous Peoples' Rights and LawFrench-language works237,207