MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

After<i>Marshall</i>: Implementation of Aboriginal Fishing Rights in Atlantic Canada

2007· article· en· W2322860346 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Melanie G. Wiber, Chris Milley

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unofficial Law · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupreme courtGovernment (linguistics)LivelihoodConstitutionPolitical scienceNatural resourceFirst nationTreatyFishingPopulationColonialismLawIndigenousPublic administrationGeographySociologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AbstractAbstractBoth the Canadian Constitution and several Supreme Court decisions have guaranteed Canada's First Nations special rights to natural resources including lands, waters, and fisheries. In acting on these rights, however, aboriginal peoples of Canada not been successful in arguing that their activities should be guided by the objectives, rules and protocols established by their First Nation, and not by those of the post-colonial Government of Canada. More recently, the 1999 Marshall decision of the Supreme Court of Canada recognized the Treaty Right of the Mi'kmaq, Maliseet and Passamaquoddy peoples to rely on natural resources for a 'moderate livelihood' and a 'communal level of benefit'. While this decision was met with uncertainly and some hostility by the non-native population, it did result in the government offering new program support to First Nations communities engaged in the commercial fishery in the Canadian Maritimes. This paper assesses those programs and provides an analysis of what First Nation communities have lost and gained in the process

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)0.002
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.461
Threshold uncertainty score0.617

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.331 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations27
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unofficial LawSame topicIndigenous Studies and EcologyFrench-language works237,207