First Nations, forest lands, and “aboriginal forestry” in Canada: from exclusion to comanagement and beyond
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The term “aboriginal forestry” is used increasingly to describe the evolving role of First Nations peoples in Canadian forestry over the last 30 years. This paper reviews a diversity of experiences and identifies issues that have important implications for governments, forest planners, and First Nations: a forestry regime that reflects the interests of governments and industry rather than those of First Nations; variable implementation of aboriginal rights in forestry practice; benefits and problems of economic partnerships; limitations on consultation, traditional knowledge, and comanagement in forestry; and finally, different forestry paradigms. Among these experiences and issues, we recognise different visions for the participation of First Nations peoples in Canadian forestry. At one end of the spectrum, “forestry excluding First Nations” is no longer accepted. The most common form may be “forestry by First Nations,” representing a role for First Nations within existing forestry regimes. Other options include “forestry for First Nations,” in which forest managers seek to incorporate aboriginal values and knowledge in management activities and “forestry with First Nations,” in which aboriginal peoples are equal partners in forest management. However, aboriginal forestry is better understood as a potential new form of forestry that uses knowledge and techniques drawn from both traditions and conventional forestry and is based on aboriginal rights, values, and institutions.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.038 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".