Living in Perfect Harmony: Harmonizing Sub-Artic Co-Management through Judicial Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>To foster the participation of Aboriginal peoples in resource governance, the Government of Canada has recently restructured a number of administrative regimes, converting them into institutions of comanagement. Despite this restructuring, the degree to which Aboriginal peoples’ participation can influence the regulatory output of co-management boards remains uncertain in law. This article deconstructs one interpretive method that can impact participation in co-management regimes: harmonization. Drawing on a trilogy of cases, I argue that recent judicial efforts to harmonize the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act with its predecessor, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, can limit the regional interpretive differences that Aboriginal peoples’ participation in treaties and co-management is intended to foster. This outcome is problematic to the extent that it frustrates the participatory goals of the legislation and the substantive goals of contemporary treaties. In light of this problem, I advocate a cautious approach to statutory interpretation in which administrative boards tasked with ensuring Aboriginal participation in decision making can be expected to produce rules, decisions, and interpretations that differ from those produced under other regimes.</p> <p><br></p>
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".