MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2244844005

Constitutional Reconciliation and Land Negotiations: Improving the Relationship between the Aboriginal Peoples and the Government of Ontario

2009· article· en· W2244844005 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jennifer Dalton

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSovereigntySettlement (finance)Government (linguistics)NegotiationPolitical scienceFriendshipSupreme courtAutonomyLawColonialismPolitical economyPublic administrationPoliticsSociologyEconomicsSocial science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aboriginal reconciliation in Canada in contemporary times embodies the objective of addressing historical wrongs suffered by Aboriginal peoples due to colonial imposition of sovereignty. Historically, relations between Aboriginal peoples and the colonizing powers were rooted in cooperative efforts, with land treaties, peace-and-friendship agreements, trade arrangements, and military alignments between the original inhabitants and settlers of what is now Canada. Based on a nation-to-nation relationship rooted in the two-row wampum tradition of autonomy, mutual respect, and friendship, original interactions between Aboriginal peoples and newcomers were ubiquitous and largely beneficial for all parties concerned. It was not until the Supreme Court of Canada’s Calder ruling in 1973 that the significance of Aboriginal title, historical treaties, and contemporary land negotiations came to the fore once more, ultimately resulting in an about-face on the part of the Canadian government. A new era of Aboriginal land negotiations began, starting with a government policy on the settlement of claims in areas where Aboriginal title was unextinguished. Prior to that time, claims were dealt with on an ad hoc basis, with few ever being resolved. The Ontario government did not establish an official policy approach for settling claims until 1976, following the federal government’s lead. Since that time, the rate of successful settlement of Ontario land claims has been relatively low, with the number of Aboriginal claims rapidly increasing, particularly in recent years. Despite seemingly noble intentions on the part of Canadian governments, Aboriginal discontent with the federal and provincial approaches to addressing land claims continues to intensify, with blockades and protests becoming increasingly popular among Aboriginal peoples as tools to convey their frustration with the negotiations process. This hard-line stance has been especially pervasive in the last several years in Ontario, notably with political protests related to Tyendinaga and Six Nations claims. These actions reflect a larger problem affecting the land negotiations process in Ontario. They speak to growing tensions between Aboriginal peoples and the province as well as a deteriorating Aboriginal-Crown relationship, ultimately underlining the need to find workable solutions to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the process as a whole. These conflicts are particularly troubling given that Aboriginal lands are at the heart of Aboriginal identity and many Aboriginal peoples are indeed committed to resolving land disputes through negotiations. This article asks the following interrelated questions: What does Aboriginal reconciliation entail? What role does Ontario play in negotiating Aboriginal land claims in the province? How do the negotiation objectives of Aboriginal peoples and the Ontario government - and by extension, the Canadian government - overlap and diverge? Is it possible to improve the relationship between Aboriginal peoples and Ontario in the context of land negotiations, and if so, how? In response, the article provides an in-depth evaluation of that process in Ontario, with an eye to determining what Aboriginal reconciliation entails and how the negotiations process might be improved in the context of land claims in the province. It is argued that significant adjustments to the land negotiations process in Ontario are necessary in order to reconcile the Aboriginal-Crown relationship in the province. Subsequent to an analysis of the historical origins and essence of Aboriginal reconciliation, a brief assessment of the constitutional scope of Ontario provincial powers in negotiating land agreements is undertaken, alongside an evaluation of the mandate and objectives of the Ontario Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs. Especially notable at this stage are the relevant Ontario policies that affect the Aboriginal land negotiations process as a whole. Additionally, data are provided on the status of claims in the province. The final portion of the paper takes a critical approach to the land negotiations process in Ontario, assessing areas for improvement alongside cross-national comparisons on relevant policies and data on the status of claims in other provinces and territories. This cross-national comparative approach allows for a more in-depth understanding of the land negotiations process in other Canadian jurisdictions, while simultaneously assisting in the formulation of concrete recommendations for the improvement of that process in Ontario. This, in turn, addresses the objectives of Aboriginal reconciliation and the improvement of the Aboriginal-Crown relationship in the province.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.275
Threshold uncertainty score0.841

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0510.017
Scholarly communication0.0130.004
Open science0.0030.007
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic Journal→Same topicCanadian Identity and History→French-language works237,207→