MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W7034619531

“UNSETTLING LANDSCAPES: APPLICATIONS OF ETHNOBOTANICAL RESEARCH IN DEFINING ABORIGINAL RIGHTS AND RE-AFFIRMING INDIGENOUS LAWS IN T’SOU-KE TERRITORY, VANCOUVER ISLAND AND BEYOND.”

2022· dissertation· en· W7034619531 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff

Notice bibliographique

RevueUVic’s Research and Learning Repository (University of Victoria) · 2022
Typedissertation
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueCreative Drama in Education
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésIndigenousEthnobotanyTraditional knowledgeIndigenous rightsHuman rightsNative plant
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

In this dissertation, I explore how, in Canada, Indigenous people’s relationships with culturally-significant plant species are an expression of Aboriginal rights, and I ask how these rights can be affirmed and exercised using a form of intersocietal law within and between First Nations and state governments. I examine how my own and others’ ethnobotanical and ethnoecological research can help to decolonize the Crown legal systems that limit Indigenous peoples in regenerating their relationships with native plant species and the ecosystems within which they are situated. In order to explore how Indigenous people’s relationships with native plant species can be expressed in law, my dissertation is grounded in a case study, developed and carried out in collaboration with the T’Sou-ke Nation, members of which have lived on southern Vancouver Island since time immemorial as part of the Straits Salish language group. Using the T’Sou-ke case study as an example, I explain how this evidence of knowledge and use of plants helps to root contemporary First Nations’ rights throughout their territories, which is essential to establishing the basis of land and resource rights that have legal force to be claimed today.I indicate current challenges faced by T’Sou-ke Nation in exercising plant-associated rights throughout their territory and outline how the current legal test for proving Aboriginal rights is problematic. The T’Sou-ke have an abundance of rich evidence of their use of 100 native plant species and of Indigenous laws and governance associated with the same. I contend that the obvious and long-standing Indigenous management of these plant species and various ecosystems on southern Vancouver Island supports a very significant claim of legal rights and I believe that my research is broadly applicable to other First Nations in BC and beyond. The T’Sou-ke Nation, historically and today, are norm creating, generating and interpreting people as reflected in their distinct social organization adapted and adjusted by their members through many changing social and ecological variables over centuries. The re-examination of the values, rules, protocols, customs and practices associated with markers of Indigenous plant use throughout Straits Salish landscapes, specifically with the assistance of Indigenous knowledge holders, as well as ethnohistorical, ethnobotanical, and traditional ecological knowledge, re-frames how evidence of land use and occupancy is presented, and, ultimately, how we might all govern these resources together. For the T’Sou-ke, laws around plants are not limited to certain traditional practices, or to specific sites or places; law also rests in species and in the long-term relationships that people have with culturally important plant species. As such, the normative ordering of T’Sou-ke laws relating to their plant use and management must be judged on T’Sou-ke terms, not by Canadian legal terms. My hope is that this research contributes to the larger discussion of acknowledging Indigenous peoples’ distinct and culturally relative rights and principles with respect to native plants, while strengthening and growing the ties that bind all British Columbians together.

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 distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesÉtudes des sciences et des technologies, Intégrité de la recherche
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: Qualitatif
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,354
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,025
Tête enseignante GPT0,318
Écart entre enseignants0,293 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeQualitatif
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2022
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueUVic’s Research and Learning Repository (University of Victoria)Même sujetCreative Drama in EducationTravaux en français237 207