Crown—First Nations Relationships: A Comparative Analysis of the Tsawwassen Final Agreement and Tsilhqot'in v. British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis explores contemporary Crown - First Nations relationships in British Columbia through a comparative analysis of the Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement and the court decision in Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia. The comparative analysis considers First Nations’ claims to land, rights and jurisdiction entering the processes of treaty and litigation with respect to how the claims are modified as a result. The reduction of land and limitations placed on claims through treaty and trial are indicative of the quality of the relationships the provincial Crown pursues with First Nations. Given the historic injustices of denying Aboriginal rights and title in BC, the province’s history of colonization requires a new relationship to be just and equitable. The Crown’s pursuit of economic certainty overwhelms the potential for justice to be achieved, which are both fundamental aspects requiring balance for a healthy relationship to be established. The outcome of the analysis reveals the Crown’s ongoing colonization of First Nations in British Columbia. As a result, this thesis attempts to offer a decolonized view of these relationships and some solutions for moving forward by placing the onus of responsibility squarely on the people of British Columbia to demand change from our provincial government.
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 | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".