MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2298179266

Akimiski Island, Nunavut, Canada: An Island in Dispute

2012· article· en· W2298179266 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Zachariah General

Bibliographic record

VenueUWSpace (University of Waterloo) · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArctic and Russian Policy Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArchaeologyGeography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On April 1, 1999, Akimiski Island, Northwest Territories, Canada, became part of the newly created Inuit-dominated territory of Nunavut, even though the Inuit never asserted Aboriginal title to this island. This is why the Omushkegowuk Cree of the western James Bay region of Ontario, Canada, assert Aboriginal title over this island. Essentially, the Government of Canada has reversed the onus of responsibility for proving Aboriginal title from the Inuit to the Cree. In this paper, we examined whether the Omushkegowuk Cree fulfill all the criteria of the common law test of Aboriginal title with respect to Akimiski Island, utilizing all available printed and online material. All criteria of the common law test of Aboriginal title were met; however, the written record only alludes to the Cree using Akimiski Island at the time of first contact and prior, Cree oral history was consulted to illuminate upon this matter. I documented and employed Cree oral history to establish that Cree traditional use and occupancy of Akimiski Island was “sufficient to be an established fact at the time of assertion of sovereignty by European nations” (INAC, 1993:5; INAC, 2008); thereby, fulfilling criterion 2 of the test for Aboriginal title. As the Cree have now met all criteria of the common law test for proof of Aboriginal title in Canada, with respect to Akimiski Island, a formal land claim should be considered by the Cree.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.089
Threshold uncertainty score0.339

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.215 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUWSpace (University of Waterloo)Same topicArctic and Russian Policy StudiesFrench-language works237,207