Bringing Meaning to First Nations Consultation in the British Columbia Salmon Aquaculture Industry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One aspect of the legal relationship between the Crown and Aboriginal peoples is the duty to consult. This duty is part of the overall fiduciary duty that the Crown owes towards Aboriginal people. The recent Supreme Court of Canada decision of Haida v. British Columbia brings the duty to consult info focus specifically in the context of salmon aquaculture in British Columbia. Difficulties arise with regards to the precise content of the duty to consult: is it merely procedural in nature, or do First Nations have a substantive right to consultation? The extent of consultation and accommodation will be determined proportionally to the strength of the claim and the seriousness of the potential infringement. The Haida case confirms the requirement of the Crown to act honourably and to effect reconciliation between the Crown and Aboriginal peoples, as has been established in previous Canadian Aboriginal jurisprudence. Consultation is practically difficult because of the fact that salmon aquaculture regulation is divided amongst several government agencies. This paper explores the question of how much input Aboriginal peoples should have and what the nature of accommodation might look like if an Aboriginal band were to protest salmon aquaculture in its territory.
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 | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.053 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".