Reconfiguration Through Consultation: A Modest (Judicial) Proposal?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reconfiguring Aboriginal-State Relations includes 15 scholarly essays that make up this volume of Canada: The State of the Federation, 2003 issued by the Institute of Intergovernmental Relations. Recent intellectual and policy work on Aboriginal-state relations in the context of Canadian federalism has not kept pace with an increasingly socio-demographically diverse Aboriginal population which has complex relationships with non-Aboriginal peoples and governments. This volume suggests that this disjuncture between policy and reality needs to be addressed with fresh ideas and governance models that recognize the autonomy of Aboriginal populations and their interdependent relationships with non-Aboriginal societies and governments. Drawn from a variety of disciplines and perspectives and including a cross-section of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal voices, Canada: The State of the Federation, 2003 assesses whether self-rule, shared-rule, and intergovernmental policies are sufficiently flexible to adapt to the challenges of federal reform. Michael Murphy is lecturer, Department of Political Studies, the University of Otago, and research associate, Institute of Intergovernmental Relations, Queen's University
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 | 0.038 | 0.083 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.046 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.051 | 0.028 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".