Navigating Murky Waters: Emerging Trends in Aboriginal Consultation and Project Approval
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article surveys the most significant recent Canadian decisions engaging the Crown’s duty to consult Aboriginal peoples in the context of natural resource and infrastructure developments and explores the following themes. First, project opponents are initiating legal challenges early and often. Second, recent decisions have affirmed the principle that the duty to consult can be fulfilled through an existing regulatory review process. Third, the jurisdiction of certain administrative tribunals to determine the adequacy of consultation and other constitutional questions remains unsettled. Fourth, Aboriginal groups continue to launch novel challenges, seeking to expand the scope of the duty to consult, often beyond the specific Crown conduct being challenged. Fifth, courts are increasingly intolerant of abuses of process, particularly where litigants fail to seek proper recourse for their grievances. Finally, project proponents are seeking recourse against the Crown in cases where it has failed to adequately consult or accommodate.
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 | 0.066 | 0.109 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".