Natural resources transfer agreement, the transfer of authority, and the promise to protect the first nations' right to a traditional livelihood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
francaisL’histoire legale du paragraphe 12 des Conventions sur le transfert des ressources naturelles s’est concentree presque exclusivement sur le developpement de la jurisprudence interpretant de facon etroite et formaliste les droits de chasse des Premieres nations. Le present article utilise l’histoire legale critique pour etoffer ce contexte historique et pour nous aider a comprendre l’evolution du regime de reglementation avant 1930, le conflit autour de l’acces aux ressources fauniques et les interets de classe representes par ce regime de reglementation. La presente analyse eclairera l’importance des traites pour les Premieres nations, en particulier quant a la capacite de maintenir leur mode de vie traditionnel, tel que promis lors des negociations de traites. Le paragraphe 12 avait pour but de transferer aux provinces l’autorite de reglementer la chasse autochtone tout en s’assurant que soient respectees les obligations gouvernementales d’agir, pour ce qui touche a l’acces a la faune, dans les interets des Premieres nations EnglishThe legal history of paragraph 12 of the National Resources Transfer Agreements have been focused almost entirely on the development of the case law interpreting First Nations hunting rights, law that took a narrow, formalistic approach to interpretation. This article uses critical legal history to fill in this historical context and help us understand the evolution of the regulatory regime prior to 1930, the conflict over wildlife, and the class interests represented in this regulatory regime. This analysis will illuminate the importance of the treaties to First Nations, especially their ability to continue their traditional livelihood, as promised during treaty negotiations. The intention behind paragraph 12 was to transfer authority to the provinces to regulate First Nations’ hunting, while ensuring that the governmental obligations to look out for First Nations’ interests in access to the wildlife were also secured
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".