Reconciliatory Fiduciary Theory: Renewing Fiduciary Law’s Applicability in the Relationship between Indigenous Peoples and the Crown in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relationship between Indigenous peoples and the Crown is one that has been corrupted by illogical conceptions of settler colonial dominance over Indigenous peoples and their inherent nationhood. This colonization has influenced Crown actions towards their Indigenous constitutional partners and resulted in real harms to the wellbeing of Indigenous peoples and sovereignty. Although the relationship between the Crown and Indigenous peoples has been referred to as a sui generis one, it has not followed foundational principles that guarantee the protection and preservation of Indigenous sovereignty. Instead, the colonial status quo has scoured Canada’s history and prevented fiduciary law’s equitable powers from addressing and guiding intelligible, ethical, moral, and honourable actions to Indigenous peoples by the Crown. This requires a tangible shift in how we define the relationship between Indigenous peoples and the Crown. It requires a recognition of clear guiding principles from private and public fiduciary theory that can be flexibly applied to factual situations of the Indigenous-Crown relationship. To do so, we must understand the theoretical conceptions of Reconciliatory Fiduciary Theory and its applicability to the current state of the law. Applying this Reconciliatory Fiduciary lens to the relationship reveals a lack of conceptual understanding of sui generis duties and plots a course that identifies preservation of Indigenous sovereignty as its foundational aim. Reconciliatory Fiduciary Theory recognizes the inherent rights of Indigenous peoples and the failures that colonial law has imparted in understanding these sovereign rights, reinvigorating the relationship by acknowledging the fiduciary role of the Crown and its honourable duties to bolster and respect Indigenous sovereignty.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.033 | 0.050 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| 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".