Testing the Waters: Jurisdictional and Policy Aspects of the Continuing Failure to Remedy Drinking Water Quality on First Nations Reserves
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper considers why, from a policy and legal perspective, there is such a disparity between the water quality on First Nations reserves, and that experienced in the majority of other Canadian communities. This involves engaging with how jurisdictional allocations, governmental policies, statutory or policy-del-egated mandates, and operational practices con-verge. In this discussion, two inter-related tensions emerge. The first is between Aboriginal aspirations to self-govern and community capacity to effectively engage in governance activities. The second is Canada's proper role and responsibilities in resolving the governance/capacity tension, and in resolving the water quality problems.\nThis paper ultimately concludes that the federal government has erred in failing to legislate standards, which has allowed A potentially responsible parties to avoid an enforceable obligation to act. In finding that a legislative regime is required, this paper considers and refutes the propositions that jurisdictional uncertainty or the pressing need for Aboriginal governments to develop capacity and take on fuller governance roles are barriers to creating the required protective regime. That is, this paper contemplates a legislative regime which accommodates and addresses these issues.
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 | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".