Constitutional Realism about Constitutional Protection:\nIndigenous Rights under a Judicialized and a Politicized\nConstitution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article assesses the comparative effectiveness of constitutional protection of indigenous rights in Canada and New Zealand using a perspective of "constitutional realism". The two constitutions offer a useful contrast of similar systems distinguished by distinctly contrasting directions over the past twentyfive years. The reality of Canadas constitutional development has seen more power accrue to the judicial branch of government. The reality of New Zealand's constitutional development has seen more power accrue to the political branches ofgovernment. The article considers the reality of the behaviour of these branches of government in each jurisdiction in relation to indigenous rights. It finds that the factual and cultural context in each of the two nations is crucial to assessing the constitutional implications ofjudicial versus political power It suggests that judicial behaviour in both nations is influenced by politics and public opinion and calls for a more sophisticated unpacking of the modes of inter-branch dialogue that occurs "in the shadow of the people".
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 | 0.017 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.063 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| 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".