The governance of forestland and resources in British Columbia : case study of Stellat'en First Nation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis is a case study of the Stellaquo, citing some global examples. British Columbia's (BC) forestland and resources governance is studied by identifying which processes of devolution, combined with decentralization, are most suitable for the Stellaquo. The Stellaquo identified a model ideal for their self-government, which is a combination of its pre-contact traditional and hereditary governance structure with contemporary western government designs. The Stellaquo proposed tripartite governance with the federal and provincial governments, emphasizing that their self-government "must be at the center of managing consultation processes leading to extraction of resources, and possessing veto powers in determining who has access to their resources". The thesis is written in a manuscript based format with each chapter suitable for journal publication. Findings indicate Stellaquo's demand for a higher level of authority in governing forestland and resources in their territory. This proposal is because the Stellaquo evaluates the Indian Act model of governance as 'unsuitable', and characterized by domination and infringement approaches that colonial and post-colonial governments used, and continue to use against Aboriginal Peoples. The research discusses issues pertaining to empowering resource users, particularly Canada's Aboriginal Peoples or Indigenous peoples worldwide, who are utilizing property rights and collective rights theories for advocating equitable access and rights to territories. I utilized these theorems in support of Aboriginal Peoples' claim for ownership to traditional territories, as jurisdictions they have resided and governed before colonial contact. The thesis contributes to ongoing debates over identifying appropriate alternative resource governance policy approaches in BC. Each chapter describes the Stellaquo concerns and proposals for reforms in the governance of forestland and resources in BC. Finally, the thesis also complements research perspectives that relate to exploring adequate measures for institutional development of emerging First Nations governments, though I did not make these notions its main foci.
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 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".