MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2121583430 · doi:10.1525/pol.2006.29.1.88

Resettling Musqueam Park

2006· article· en· W2121583430 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jennifer A. Hamilton

Bibliographic record

VenuePoLAR Political and Legal Anthropology Review · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomic rentColonialismLeasehold estatePoliticsIndigenousAmenityEminent domainLand tenureGeographySupreme courtCorporate governancePolitical scienceLawEconomyArchaeologyEconomicsAgriculture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Musqueam Park, an affluent residential subdivision located on an Indian reserve in Vancouver, British Columbia, became the site of an intense five‐year struggle when the Musqueam Indian Band tried to collect higher land rents from its nonindigenous tenants. In late 2000, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Indian land was significantly less valuable than other privately held forms of property and discounted leasehold rents owed to the Band by 50 percent. In this article, I examine Musqueam Park's historical emergence as a desirable area for nonindigenous homeowners and its shifting boundaries and inscriptions in light of the Musqueam attempt to collect higher rents. I argue that embedded in this political and legal dispute are a series of factors that landscape Musqueam Park. These include (1) how settler anxieties about shifting power dynamics between indigenous and settler societies, including concerns about changing structures of governance, access to land, and resource allocation, shape the discursive content of the dispute; (2) how the historical underdevelopment of reserves in general, and the Musqueam reserve in particular, sets the stage for contemporary battles over valuable residential property; and (3) how colonial relations, especially in terms of property, continue to shape public and legal discourses in British Columbia.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.987
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.344 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations4
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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