The balance of power : assessing conflict and collaboration in Aboriginal forest management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relationship between Aboriginal and Crown governments in regards to forest management in Canada is dynamic and challenging. This study describes this relationship in terms of the Aboriginal-Crown forest policy context, highlighting regional examples of Aboriginal forest management and developing a constructive framework for the analysis of the Aboriginal-Crown relationship. The forest policy context is set by providing a case study of British Columbia's attempt to overhaul forest policy in the face of political, judicial and Aboriginal rights and title pressures. This cases study provides insight into the complexities that exist within the Aboriginal-Crown relationship by utilizing a policy regime and policy cycle framework. Results of the case study highlight that Aboriginal governments must be consulted and given a rightful seat at the policy design table. Creation of exclusive provincial government-industry policy forums can lead to increased tensions between Aboriginal and Crown governments. Such tensions can result in judicial challenges by Aboriginal peoples and a distrustful environment surrounding the spirit and intent of new forest policy design. Examples of Aboriginal forest management from British Columbia and Labrador are then reviewed to explore the concept of Aboriginal forest tenure. Analysis of these examples finds that governance mechanisms, enabled by co-management agreements, are the driving factor behind significant changes to forest management regimes. A conceptual framework is then developed for determining the level of power-sharing in Aboriginal-Crown forest management arrangements. The framework is applied to the British Columbian Forest and Range Agreement policy initiative. Results suggest that little power-sharing exists at the strategic decision-making level, but enhanced powersharing does occur at the tactical and operational levels.
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 | 0.023 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".