Understanding the Progression of Mi'kmaw Law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past 250 years, the recognition and implementation of the aboriginal and treaty rights of the Santi Mawio'mi of the Mi'kmaq has been a hard and bitter struggle for justice. Building on Mi'kmaw Aboriginal knowledge and legal traditions that inform their aboriginal and treaty rights, the Supreme Court of Canada has affirmed a Mi'kmaw right to hunt, fish, and gather in their traditional territory. The author focuses on the progression of Mi'kmaw law, drawing on the original teachings of the Mawio'mi embedded in Netukulimk and then shifting to the current legal strategy that creates a constitutional jurisgensis and a foundation for a long awaited constitutional reconciliation with the Mawiomi in Atlantic Canada. The argument not only reaffirms the importance of language, teachings, and history towards litigating Aboriginal law but also affirms the preexisting Aboriginal sovereignty of the Mawiomi as understood in their creation stories.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".