A MEASURED SOVEREIGNTY: THE POLITICS OF NATION-MAKING IN BRITISH COLUMBIA1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract I Resume In this paper, we argue that the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal principals to the British Columbia Treaty Process advance radically different positions on the issue of Aboriginal self-determination. We categorize the two emergent positions as Aboriginal rationalism and governmentalist prudentialism-the former bent on inflecting negotiations in the direction of Aboriginal sovereignty, and the latter aiming to confine Aboriginal control to forms of self-governance that integrate First Nations into the circuits of global capital and the retrenchments of the neoliberal state. We consider whether this crucial negotiation impasse can be resolved through the notion of a 'measured sovereignty '. Dans cet article, nous demontrons que les responsables en charge de la Procedure du Traite de la Columbie britannique presentent des positions radicalement differentes quanta la question de I'autodetennination, selon qu'ils sont autochtones ou non. Nous plac;ons les deux positions emergentes soit dans la categorie du rationalisme autochtone, soit dans celie du prudentialisme gouvernemental--Le premier etant resolu afaire pencher les negociations vers una souverainete amerindienne, Ie second visant aconfiner Ie contraIe autochtoneades fonnes d'autogouvernance qui integrent les Premieres Nations dans les circuits du capitalisme global et les retranchements de I'etat neo-Iiberal. Nous examinons la possibilite que cette negociation cruciale puisse sortir de cette impasse par Ie biais d'une "souverainete mesuree".
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".