Thinking Differently: Creating Spaces of Autonomy for the Revitalization of Indigenous Legal Traditions in the Context of Copyright
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is an urgent need to think differently. Colonialism, in its settler variant, has developed new and particularly dangerous strategies to advance its dual imperatives of the dispossession of Indigenous peoples and the erasure of Indigeneity as a politicized identity construct with a legitimate claim to law. This goal is advanced today through rights frameworks, which have generated a worrisome platform to support the logic of elimination by drawing Indigenous calls for autonomy, self-determination, and sovereignty into a settler colonial framework of authority. In this chapter, we highlight how these strategies function in the context of Canadian copyright law. Canadian copyright law is deeply implicated in a number of issues that matter greatly to Indigenous peoples today. One possible response by Indigenous peoples to the role played by copyright in relation to these issues is to work within the copyright system: to either engage with the system as structured or to seek to reform the copyright system to make it more responsive to Indigenous concerns. While protections may be secured through either of these methods, this chapter highlights a few of the risks associated with these approaches, in particular how they draw Indigenous peoples into the settler colonial framework of authority potentially resulting in a diminishment of Indigenous sovereignty. This argument suggests that in seeking to protect Indigenous modes of expression, we should be wary of reliance on rights. Instead, we should seek to create spaces of autonomy for the revitalization of Indigenous legal traditions.
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 | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.084 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 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".