Land claim and treaty negotiations in British Columbia, Canada: Implications for First Nations land and self‐governance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Unlike the historic settlement of the rest of Canada, treaties with the First Nations originally occupying most of present‐day British Columbia have never been finalized. Since 1993, the federal government of Canada, the provincial government of British Columbia, and approximately two‐thirds of the First Nations in British Columbia have been engaged in treaty and land claim negotiations under a unique British Columbia treaty process. To date the process has produced only five agreements, three of which are fully ratified, one of which is in the ratification process, and one of which was rejected by the First Nations membership. This article reviews the history of treaties in British Columbia and uses exploratory illustrative case studies to examine two of these recent treaty negotiations—the Lheidli T'enneh First Nations and the Tsawwassen First Nations. These case studies demonstrate that treaty negotiations are very complex processes and do not always achieve mutual agreement, yet features of governance and land ownership included in these agreements have implications for land use policy and planning that affect all First Nations people in British Columbia, in Canada, and around the world.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.041 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".