Rencontre des Cultures Juridiques dans la Toundra Subarctique: Vers une Nouvelle Gouvernance Foncière au Nunatsiavut (Legal Cultures Encounter in the Subarctic Toundra: Towards a New Land Governance in Nunatsiavut)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
French Abstract: L’arrivee des Europeens en Amerique du Nord a mis en contact des univers juridiques profondement differents, a savoir les cultures indigenes – de tradition chtonienne – et les cultures occidentales de droit civil dans les territoires decouverts par la France et l’Espagne, ou de common law dans ceux annexes par la Grande-Bretagne. Aujourd’hui encore, ces cultures juridiques se cotoient et interagissent. L’organisation de cette interaction des cultures juridiques autochtones et non autochtones compte parmi les defis des nouvelles formes de gouvernance qui emergent non seulement a la faveur de la conclusion d’ententes de reglements de revendications territoriales et d’autonomie gouvernementale, mais aussi sous l’impulsion de la jurisprudence relative aux droits ancestraux ou issus de traites reconnus et confirmes par la Constitution canadienne depuis 1982. L’Accord sur les revendications territoriales des Inuit du Labrador, dont traite cette breve note, est la deuxieme entente dans l’histoire recente du Canada a instaurer simultanement un nouveau regime foncier et un gouvernement autochtone autonome dont le statut et les pouvoirs sont proteges constitutionnellement.Nous entendons montrer que cet accord constitue une experience novatrice par laquelle l’Etat canadien et un peuple autochtone tentent de nouer entre leur culture juridique respective un nouveau rapport faisant une place reelle a la coordination dialogique, c’est-a-dire a l’adaptation reciproque plutot qu’a l’assimilation hegemonique du droit autochtone au droit de l’Etat. Il s’agit egalement d’expliquer en quoi cette configuration du droit pourrait ameliorer la gouvernance des terres et des ressources naturelles dans la region visee en confortant la legitimite culturelle du nouvel ordre foncier.English Abstract: Deeply different legal cultures entered in contact with the arrival of Europeans in North America: aboriginal cultures – of chthonian tradition – and occidental cultures both of civil law, in the case of territories “discovered” by France and Spain, and of common law, in those conquered by Great-Britain. To this day, those legal cultures live side by side and interact. The interaction of the indigenous and non-indigenous legal cultures and its organisation is a very pressing challenge as the new governances are emerging from the conclusion of self-governance and land claims agreements, but also from the ancestral and treaty rights jurisprudence that followed the adoption of the Constitution Act in 1982. The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement is the second agreement in Canadian recent history to put in place a new land regime and an autonomous aboriginal government which status and power are constitutionally protected.In this article, we argue that the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement constitute an innovative experience through which the Canadian state and an aboriginal people try and develop a new relation between their respective legal cultures. This new relation is based on dialogical coordination and mutual adaptation rather than on a hegemonic assimilation of aboriginal law into state law. We will explore how this new legal configuration is enhancing land and natural resources governance in the region when also strengthening the new land regime cultural legitimacy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".