How Canadian Criminal Law is Unsustainable in Inuit Lands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.042 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".