Haida Nation and Taku River: A Commentary On Aboriginal Consultation and Reconciliation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On November 18, 2004 the Supreme Court of Canada ("the Court") released its two landmark decisions on aboriginal consultation. Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests) and Weyerhaeuser Company Limited, and Taku River Tlingit First Nation v. British Columbia (Project Assessment Director), together, provide the most significant discussion to date by the Court on Aboriginal consultation. The main issue before the Court was very narrow: did the governments have an obligation to consult Aboriginal peoples over government authorized activities in instances where the Aboriginal rights were unknown, uncertain, or in dispute, and if so the extent of that obligation. The Supreme Court of Canada concluded that where the Crown, federal or provincial, has “knowledge, real or constructive,” of the potential existence of an Aboriginal right, title or a treaty right, and contemplates conduct that might adversely affect that right or title, the honour of the Crown requires the Crown to consult and in some circumstances accommodate that interest. Ria Tzimas offers an overview of the two cases, discusses the m with reference to the analysis offered by Slattery and McNeil and discusses some thoughts on were the discussion concerning aboriginal consultation and reconciliation is likely to go and what the future challenges might be.
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 | 0.015 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.063 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.060 | 0.062 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".