Review of <i>Canada's Indigenous Constitution</i>. By John Borrows.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This text's major thesis, that "Canada cannot presently, historically, legally, or morally claim to be built upon European-derived law alone," has been mentioned before. Yet in those earlier musings by Borrows and others, such a statement has never been documented so well as it is here. Borrows contemplates that others, besides those sympathetic with Indigenous perspectives, might just admit such a thesis is the case. Moreover, they might also support the creation of social and economic policies that demonstrate such a belief. But observing it in Canada's current legal system-really? Keenly aware of skeptics, Borrows has thought as much about his method as his content. As a result, he trumps other authors by using the proverbial "master's tools" to take down the "master's house," revealing to us that the Canadian legal system is, first and foremost, imbued with Indigenous law. The problem, he simultaneously details, is that too many people do not interpret it as such.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".