MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2018191563 · doi:10.1525/pol.2006.29.1.44

(Re)Landscaping Sovereignty in British Columbia, Canada

2006· article· en· W2018191563 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kathleen M. Sullivan

Bibliographic record

VenuePoLAR Political and Legal Anthropology Review · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSovereigntyPolitical scienceControl (management)Public administrationLandscapingLawPoliticsManagementEconomicsEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many forms of sovereignty are still, albeit not exclusively, anchored in claims on territory and are asserted through the productive exercise of control over people, resources, and habitats located within the spaces of territory. In British Columbia, Canada, First Nations' assertions of sovereign control over their territories and resources are reconfiguring resource planning, development, and management, even as the provincial and federal governments seek to maintain their own control over the same territory. While the courts have been the primary avenue for protecting Aboriginal Title and rights, First Nations are also turning to the use of mass media and other public forums. This essay examines the assertions of sovereignty made by coastal First Nations through the venues of public forums.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.972
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.284 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePoLAR Political and Legal Anthropology ReviewSame topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207