Some Reflections on Hydroelectric Development and the Land Rights of the Innu Who Live in Quebec and Those Who Live in Labrador
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For more than thirty years, the Innu of the Matimekush Lac John reserve in Northern Quebec have been negotiating to recover rights to ancestral lands extinguished under the terms of the James Bay & Northern Quebec Agreement.Where the Cree and Inuit who shared these lands were prepared -having tried every means to stop the James Bay project -to sign away all their land rights except those specifically provided for in the Agreement, the Innu of Quebec and Labrador felt bound by their deep conviction that land is not a commodity to be bought and sold but the foundation of their belief system, held in trust for past generations and generations to come.Thus they walked away from the negotiation table and their rights were ignored by all parties to the Agreement.Since 1975, unlike the Cree and Inuit who signed the agreement, the Innu of Quebec have remained wards of the Crown.The governance of their communities is overseen by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, with no control over their budgets, inferior education for their children, and no access to lucrative government contracts.These go to their neighbours who have signed so-called land claims agreements with the governments and their commercial partners.Now the Innu are facing the extinguishment of their land rights in the east as their relatives in Labrador prepare to sign the final Tshash Petapen or 'New Dawn' Agreement, which must precede the building of a second hydroelectric project on the Churchill River.This will leave them with no rights to land other than those attached to their villages.For a hunting people who lived a nomadic life up until the 1950s this is a catastrophe which will destroy their language and culture.This paper makes some suggestions as to how the land might be recovered in the light of an unreported case which upholds indigenous rights over needs for hydroelectricity.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.042 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.001 |
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".