MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2169105809

Repenser les fondements du régime minier québécois au regard de l’obligation de la Couronne de consulter et d’accommoder les peuples autochtones (Rethinking the Foundations of the Quebec Mining Regime in Relation to the Crown Duty to Consult and Accommodate Aboriginal Peoples)

2010· article· fr· W2169105809 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sophie Thériault

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldEngineering
TopicMining and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesConstitutionLawPhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

French Abstract: Cet article a pour objet d’analyser l’encadrement juridique des activites minieres au Quebec a l’aune des obligations constitutionnelles qui incombent a la province de consulter et d’accommoder les peuples autochtones. L’auteure propose que les fondements du regime minier quebecois, en particulier le principe de la liberte de prospection (« free mining »), sont foncierement incompatibles avec la mise en œuvre par la province de ses obligations constitutionnelles a l’egard des peuples autochtones. Elle est d’avis, en outre, que ni le processus quebecois d’evaluation des repercussions environnementales des projets de developpement, ni les Ententes sur les repercussions et les avantages, du moins dans leur forme actuelle, ne sauraient remedier aux lacunes fondamentales du regime minier. La conciliation des obligations constitutionnelles de la Couronne a l’egard des peuples autochtones, d’une part, et du regime minier quebecois, d’autre part, requerait selon elle une reforme radicale des piliers memes regime minier quebecois voire, le cas echeant, des regimes juridiques connexes.English Abstract: This article purports to analyze the legal framework of mining activities in the province of Quebec in light of the constitutional obligations incumbent on the province to consult and accommodate Aboriginal peoples. The author advances that the foundations of the Quebec mining regime, particularly the principle of free mining, are essentially incompatible with the implementation of its constitutional obligations towards Aboriginal peoples. She also suggests that neither Quebec’s environmental impact project assessment process, nor the “Impact and Benefits Agreements” can, at least in their current form, palliate the fundamental weaknesses of the mining regime. The conciliation between the Crown’s constitutional obligations towards Aboriginal peoples, on one side, and the Quebec mining regime, on the other, would require a radical reform of the pillars of the Quebec mining regime and even, if need be, of the relevant connected legal regimes.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.542
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicMining and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207