Canada's Conduct of Lawful Relations: The Hul'qumi'num Treaty Group's Jurisdictional Entanglements in Non-Aboriginal Law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Hul'qumi'num Treaty Group are fighting for legal recognition of their property rights with respect to their unceded lands located in British Columbia, Canada. In examining the available literature surrounding the British Columbia Treaty Commission, it is clear that the domestic processes for negotiation have been structured in such a way so that Aboriginal narratives and laws have been foreclosed upon by the legal architecture and language that underwrites the negotiations between Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal governments. The Hul'qumi'num Treaty Group's decision to apply to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights rather than continue with domestic remedies through the courts or treaty-making process represents a chance to compare the two legal spaces. The comparison is made through the use of a praxis of jurisdiction, which is a technique that can explore the ways in which person, places, or events make contact with the body of law. The focus of such a jurisdictional endeavour is to use the magnifying lens of jurisdictional thinking to uncover the landscape of legal practice as it is manifest in the two Commissions. Specifically, jurisdictional thinking is about the quality of lawful relations, bringing in to focus the texture of the relationships between the Hul'qumi'num Treaty Group and Non-Aboriginal governments. The Inter-American Commission generates very different opportunities for the articulation of legal relationships, and as such the jurisdictional perspective uncovers the need for Canada to take seriously its commitment to an ethic of responsibility in its conduct of lawful relations, and a pressing need to reconfigure the mechanics of domestic law to make room for different legal scaffolding.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.067 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".