Explaining Aboriginal Treaty Negotiation Outcomes in Canada: The Cases of the Inuit and the Innu in Labrador
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. In 1977, the Inuit and the Innu in Labrador each submitted statements of intent to begin treaty negotiations with the federal and provincial governments under the federal comprehensive land claims process. On 22 January 2005, the Inuit, the federal government, and the province of Newfoundland and Labrador signed the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement. The Innu, on the other hand, are nowhere near to completing their agreement. This paper seeks to explain why the Inuit were able to complete their agreement, whereas the Innu were not. It challenges the conventional explanation that an economic development project is a necessary condition for completing a treaty by arguing that a number of internal and external factors need to be taken into account. Résumé. En 1977, les Inuits ainsi que les Innus du Labrador ont respectivement annoncé leur intention de lancer des négociations en vue de conclure un traité avec les gouvernements fédéral et provincial en vertu du processus des recendications territoriales globales. Le 22 janvier 2005, les Inuits, le gouvernement fédéral et la province de Terre-Neuve-et-Labrador ont conclu l'Accord sur les revendications territoriales des Inuit du Labrador. Les Innus, de leur côté, sont encore loin d'une entente. Cet article cherche à expliquer pourquoi les Inuits ont pu signer un accord alors que les Innus n'y sont pas parvenus. L'article remet en question l'explication souvent avancée voulant qu'un projet de développement économique soit une condition nécessaire à l'achèvement d'une entente et soutient plutôt qu'un ensemble de facteurs intérieurs et extérieurs doivent être pris en compte.
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 | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.046 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".