Crown Lands and Forests Act Signals End to Aboriginal and Treaty Rights in New Brunswick, Canada—Part A
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since 1982, 51% of New Brunswick's forests, which are on Crown Lands, have been managed by large industrial license holders, as mandated by the province's Crown Lands and Forests Act (CLFA). The government's 2014 renegotiation of forestry management agreements (FMAs) with licensees saw the size of forest conservation areas diminished substantially so as to provide industry with more wood fibre for its mills. New Brunswick's aboriginal peoples never ceded this land to the Crown, and were never consulted prior to the announcement of these new FMAs. Ten New Brunswick chiefs took the government to court, arguing that what the government was proposing infringed on their treaty rights to hunt, fish, and gather because the forest habitat required to provide them with fish, wildlife, and medicinal plants necessary to exercise those rights was about to be destroyed. The chiefs were unsuccessful in their attempt to block the new FMAs. Using institutional ethnography as my method of investigation, my goal was to explore and discover how it was that the chiefs came to lose their case.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".