Recognition of Aboriginal Self-Government in Canada: The Changing Landscape
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Acceptance of the idea of Aboriginal self-government has increased dramatically in Canada in recent years. In 1969, the federal government refused to acknowledge the possibility of collective indigenous rights to land, let alone to self-government. The situation is significantly different today, politically, legally and practically. Federal policy recognizes the existence of an inherent right of self-government, and provincial governments have shown increasing willingness to enter into tripartite negotiations that include a self-government component. The British Columbia Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of Aboriginal self-government and, while the Supreme Court of Canada has not yet ruled on this point, its decisions leave open the possibility that constitutionally recognized Aboriginal rights encompass self-government (while at the same time counselling parties to negotiate, rather than litigate, such claims). In practical terms, increased control at the community level is becoming a reality both through comprehensive claims settlements that include self-government provisions, and through the growing number of services and programs that are administered and delivered by indigenous communities. Of course, all these developments, while remarkable, must be placed in proper historical context: indigenous peoples have protested the diminution of their power to govern themselves since the first version of the Indian Act was introduced in the 1850s. Continued implementation of self-government will require resolution of key legal, political and fiscal issues, and difficult discussions about what is and is not possible under the rubric of self-government. The focus of this piece, however, is on the magnitude of change over the past 40 years, and the factors that allowed such a sea change to occur.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.040 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".