The Influence of Judicial Uncertainty on Executive Support for Negotiation in Canadian Land Claims Policy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Governments and Indigenous groups bargain under the shadow of the law, and this paper pushes the judicial politics research agenda by examining empirically whether flickers in law's shadow systematically affect the implementation of the Canadian government's negotiation choice in the Indigenous land rights context. Through interviews and a time series analysis of Canada's specific claims policy, I find that judicial uncertainty increases the federal government's propensity to accept specific claims for negotiation. However, there is evidence that Indigenous protest action during the Oka crisis and Elijah Harper's role in scuttling the Meech Lake constitutional accord, more than other factors, greatly impacted the federal budget allocated towards negotiation. Résumé. Les négociations entre les gouvernements et les groupes autochtones se déroulent sous les auspices de la loi, et le présent document examine le programme de recherche sur les politiques légales afin de déterminer de façon empirique si certaines imprécisions dans la loi influent sur les options retenues par le gouvernement du Canada en ce qui concerne les droits sur les terres autochtones. Une analyse statistique de la politique de revendication en vigueur au Canada ainsi qu'un certain nombre d'entrevues m'ont permis de constater l'existence d'un flou juridique qui amène le gouvernement fédéral à accepter d'examiner certaines revendications spécifiques à la table des négociations. Il semble toutefois que certains incidents particuliers, comme les gestes de protestation posés par les autochtones lors de la crise d'Oka, ou le rôle joué par Elijah Harper dans l'échec de l'Accord constitutionnel du lac Meech, aient eu une incidence marquée sur l'importance des sommes allouées par le gouvernement fédéral à ces négociations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".