Protecting Indigenous Peoples' Lands: Making Room for the Application of Indigenous Peoples' Laws Within the Canadian Legal System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article uses James (Sákéj) Youngblood Henderson’s process to achieving a postcolonial legal consciousness as a methodology to gain greater recognition of Indigenous laws, which I argue will lead to better protection of Indigenous peoples’ lands, territories and resources. First, I show how the liberal basis of the Canadian legal rights paradigm, as currently applied, does not reflect Indigenous peoples’ own understandings of their rights and interests, and results in racist precedents that confine the power and authority of Indigenous peoples over their lands. Referring to other Indigenous scholars, I then discuss Indigenous peoples’ connections with their lands, some of the rights and obligations that stem from this connection, and some of the Indigenous legal principles that govern this relationship. Finally, I turn to international law to demonstrate the ways in which Indigenous peoples’ participation in the definition of their rights to their lands, territories and resources leads to different articulation of rights than is seen in Canadian Aboriginal title jurisprudence.
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 | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.034 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| 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".