Certificates of Possession and First Nations Housing : A Case Study of the Six Nations Housing Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Résumé Un des malentendus persistant au sujet des réserves autochtones canadiennes est que le territoire soit la propriété collective de la bande. En réalité, les membres des bandes autochtones peuvent individuellement avoir accès à quatre types de régimes de propriété privée. Cet article porte sur l'un de ces types, le Certificat de propriété (CP), pour déterminer les conséquences et les avantages des CP sur le développement économique des réserves autochtones au Canada. Nous examinerons comment des membres de la bande des Six Nations ont pu utiliser les CP pour contourner les restrictions de saisie inscrites dans la Loi sur les Indiens pour obtenir une hypothèque, construire et devenir propriétaire de leur propre maison. Cette analyse de cas démontre comment les CP, de concert avec une aide financière provenant de la bande et/ou du gouvernement, peuvent fournir une solution pratique aux problèmes de logement auxquels plusieurs réserves au Canada sont confrontés.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".