MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7163913820 · doi:10.18261/ret.43.4.5

How Canadian Criminal Law is Unsustainable in Inuit Lands

2020· article· en· W7163913820 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Maura Hanrahan*, Benjamin Dosu**

Bibliographic record

VenueRetfærd · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSovereigntyIndigenousCriminal justiceEconomic JusticeLaw enforcementSustainabilityPoliticsSustainable development

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we contribute to the limited research focus on sustainable social development among the Inuit with emphasis on one foci of social sustainability – sustainable justice. We demonstrate that the Canadian criminal law is unsustainable in Inuit lands. Drawing our analysis from the ongoing Canadian-Indigenous colonization process, we argue that historical Canadian ambitions related to sovereignty resulted in the erasure of long-standing Inuit law. Inuit law was complex, and it effectively regulated behaviour and sustained Inuit society. Despite its effectiveness, Inuit law was unwritten and therefore invisible to colonial states. Inuit law, mores, and norms, essential to Inuit culture, were replaced by alien and inappropriate laws. Consequently, Inuit are subordinate to a criminal justice system that reflects different values and practices, some of which are in direct contradiction to Inuit values and practices. Today Inuit experience high rates of incarceration, rooted in the cultural, social, and political dislocation caused by colonialism. This paper urges attention to sustainable justice for Inuit, a marginalized Indigenous people. Returned responsibility is key to a sustainable justice system for Inuit; the (re)development of law and its enforcement must be shaped by Inuit. Keywords Colonization Criminal justice Inuit Sustainability

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.732
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.055
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.289 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRetfærdSame topicIndigenous Studies and EcologyFrench-language works237,207