Professor Karen Drake has co-edited a new book – Renewing Relationships: Indigenous Peoples and Canada – that includes chapters written by Professors Deborah McGregor and Signa Daum Shanks, and herself
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This edited collection features essays by Indigenous legal academics from across Canada about renewing relationships between Indigenous peoples and Canada. Some Indigenous nations might embrace principles of reconciliation as reflecting a renewed relationship, while others reject the concept of reconciliation and instead advocate for resistance or decolonization. This collection includes chapters that critically engage with these theoretical debates, as well as chapters that analyze how these concepts can be instantiated in tangible and specific ways. It builds on existing literature on Indigenous-Crown relationships that addresses issues such as the inclusion of Indigenous laws, self-determination, and the role of the constitution. The chapters explore questions such as: What does a renewed relationship look like in modern Canadian society? What is the role of Indigenous law in renewing the relationship between Indigenous peoples and Canada? What does the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples contribute to an understanding of a renewed relationship? How do treaties define Indigenous-Crown relationships? What shifts must occur within Canadian institutions to move away from the current colonial relationship?
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.003 |
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".