MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W7038673812

Inuit Nunangat Regional Overlaps: Reciprocal Harvesting & Wildlife Management Agreements

2021· article· en· W7038673812 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff

Notice bibliographique

RevueeYLS (Yale Law School) · 2021
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineAgricultural and Biological Sciences
ThématiqueMollusks and Parasites Studies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésDevolution (biology)Government (linguistics)Corporate governanceHuman settlementAdministration (probate law)WildlifeAgency (philosophy)Wildlife management
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

This article after a brief introduction which describes the Inuit of Canada and their administrative segmentation by the territorial and provincial boundaries of the Yukon Territory, Northwest Territory, Nunavut Territory, Province of Quebec and the Province of Labrador. While arguably the Inuit are also considered to have traditionally used the northern regions of other provinces this study will focus on the present governance organizational framework assigned via Inuit Land Claims with Canada. The formation of Canada in 1867 and the subsequent partitioning of the Yukon and Nunavut from the Northwest Territory, and the addition of the Northern Quebec (Ungava Bay Peninsula) in 1912 to Quebec, and the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador joining Canadian Confederation in 1949 delineated the Inuit within these provincial and territorial jurisdictions in what had once been considered by the Inuit one large all inclusive contiguous land and sea home area they refer to as Nunangat.\nAnd, so it is that as the Inuit were brought in (or ordered) of the land from their nomadic and semi-nomadic hunter-gatherer existence, they came under the administration of federal and respective territorial and provincial governments and divided from their fellow Inuit across these boundaries. Thus, as Inuit have become more organized and schooled in the ways of the colonial/post-colonial administration they have begun through a process of devolution to seek the autonomy of governance requisite to pursue self-governance and self-determination. And to this the Government of Canada has been responding through consultations and negotiations, entering into Land Claims Agreements with each of the four respective sub-groups of the Nunangat. The land claims are with Nunavik (1975), Inuvialuit (1984), Nunavut (1993) and Nunatsiavut (2005).\nThe Inuit Land Claims are preliminarily identified in Section 2. However, they are only one component on the Inuit devolutionary path to self-governance and self-determination, and this section also further provides a review of the process and progress of devolution within each of the respective territories and regions within the Inuit Nunangat of Canada. In Section 3, the Inuit Nunangat as a whole is examined with respect to harvesting and wildlife management which is inextricably linked to the culture and survival of Inuit people. It commences in Section 3(A) with a review of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement 1975 (JBNQA) was the first major and landmark agreement between the Government of Canada and indigenous peoples in Canada. The JBNQA created a series of governance mechanisms proving the signatories, i.e. Inuit, Cree, and in 1978 the Naskapi (under the NEQA), the governance tools to continue their subsistence practices. Central to these mechanisms were commitments to create a co-management regime between neighboring indigenous claims settlements for the area's wildlife, but it was not until the other neighboring Inuit regions signed their respective land claims agreements that overlap clauses and agreements intra-Inuit and intra-indigenous began to be formalized. These are reviewed and discussed in Section 3 (B). As will be seen it is a complex system of multiple levels of government and Inuit organizations tailored together in a fashion of co-management that the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (ITK), the national voice of the Inuit Nunangat, must navigate inter-regionally within the respective Inuit land claims, federal departments and agencies, along with provincial, territorial and other indigenous entities composite in the harvesting and wildlife management governance framework.

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)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,491
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,999

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

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

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,039
Tête enseignante GPT0,257
Écart entre enseignants0,218 · 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'étudeSans objet
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
Publié2021
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueeYLS (Yale Law School)Même sujetMollusks and Parasites StudiesTravaux en français237 207