Aandaakonan inaakonigewin: Considering an Anishinaabe meaning to the Canadian law on consultation and accommodation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Indigenous laws are resurging throughout Turtle Island and have vital roles to play in the creation and application of laws, governance structures, and decision-making. However, for this to happen, the understanding of the law which is predominant and dictates legal processes must change, specifically when such laws apply to Indigenous land and peoples. This will allow Indigenous legal orders – including Anishinaabe legal norms such as mutual aid, kinship, giftedness and doodem – to flourish. This thesis explores Anishinaabe law resurgence by asking: how can decision-making about land, natural resources, and Aboriginal rights through the duty to consult and accommodate be altered so to be understood and applied through Anishinaabe law? By exploring the legal principles and theories that form both the colonial and Anishinaabe legal orders, this thesis considers one way Anishinaabe legal orders could understand the duty to consult and accommodate.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.035 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".