Environment, race and nation reconsidered: reflections on Aboriginal land claims in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The course of development in Northern Canada has been transformed in the last 30 years by the comprehensive land claims process. For much of the twentieth century, the settlement and development of northern Canada was experienced by Aboriginal people as a continuing process of encroachment on (and sometimes transformation of) their traditional territories, and of restriction of their customary livelihood. Examples of this process included the alteration of river systems by impoundment and diversion, the pollution and contamination of river systems, government restrictions on hunting and fishing and population relocation and sedentarization. Aboriginal political and legal action led, in the 1970s, to the establishment of a formal process for resolving Aboriginal land claims, and to revised judicial interpretation of Aboriginal and treaty rights. The paper describes how geographers have contributed to documenting those claims, and how land claims settlements have altered the land and resource regimes in northern Canada, and concludes with some observations on the effectiveness of those remedies, and on the changes in Canadian perspectives on Aboriginal northerners, the northern environment and northern development .
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.078 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".