Notice bibliographique
Résumé
With a renewed focus on concluding modern treaties and other forms of self-governance agreements with First Nations the federal governments needs to examine new methods for assisting First Nations resolve overlapping territorial disputes.Treaties and Aboriginal Government Negotiations-West is the branch of Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada that is tasked with negotiating treaties in B.C. and ensuring the governments "duty to consult" is met in regards to overlaps.Overlaps are geographic areas where more than one First Nation asserts Aboriginal rights and title.In British Columbia this issue is especially prevalent as the majority of First Nations in the province did not sign treaties with the federal government in the 19 th and 20 th century as colonization was occurring.In B.C. each First Nations has at least one overlap area with another.Having recommenced treaty negotiations in 1993 through the B.C. Treaty process, overlaps and the inability to develop a process that facilitates there resolution in the modern day legal context has caused the conclusion of treaties to be delayed and led to legal challenges for others.If modern day treaties are to avoid legal challenges by Indigenous communities with overlapping territory new methods and approaches to the resolution of overlaps needs to be examined.This report aims to answer the following research question:1. What tools and approaches can be used or supported by Treaties and Aboriginal Government Negotiations-West and the Crown in supporting First Nations, inside and outside the treaty process, develop mechanisms to resolve overlapping territorial claims?The secondary research questions related to this are: a.Why are overlaps a contentious issue?b.How have overlaps traditionally been resolved and how are they currently resolved?c.What are the key barriers to the resolution of overlaps?d.How can aspects of Indigenous law and dispute resolution mechanisms be applied to the tools available to TAG-NW to assist First Nations in resolving overlap disputes? MethodologyThis report uses a qualitative approach in answering the questions above.A literature review was conducted to provide an overview of traditional Indigenous laws and dispute resolution mechanism, while focusing on key aspects that may hold value in resolving overlaps.This was done through an analysis of the available literature from academic journals, independent research reports, books, working and conference papers.A jurisdictional scan was also conducted to examine how other countries are dealing with unresolved Indigenous land claims and the impacts that overlapping territorial disputes are having in delaying claims resolution.The two countries selected for the jurisdiction scan were Australia and Nicaragua.Australia was selected due to having a similar legal system to Canada
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,027 | 0,056 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,026 | 0,018 |
| Communication savante | 0,013 | 0,017 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,025 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,008 | 0,009 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,018 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».