Recognising indigenous rights through co-management regimes : Canadian and Australian experiences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Indigenous co-management of lands, waters, seas and resources is rapidly expanding throughout the world. The most highly regarded models have been developed in Australia and Canada. Their 'success' has been largely anecdotal and based on informal practices and relationships developed by dedicated participants. The focus has been on practical means of making co-management work on the ground. Much has been gained in this process. However, fundamental conflicts and issues relating to Indigenous rights have often been ignored. It cannot be assumed that conservation and managerial agendas will be the same as the aspirations of Indigenous owners. This article critically reviews the very diverse Australian and Canadian experiences, having regard to international and national legal standards recognizing the comprehensive rights of Indigenous peoples, and suggests that a more 'rights based' approach to co-management is needed. More careful attention also needs to be given to the contexts and parties involved. Indigenous roles will vary depending on whether co-management is part of self government negotiations, or more limited agendas related to conservation, sustainable resource management or mainstream planning and development frameworks.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".