MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2554329547

Negative Capability: Of Provinces and Lands Reserved for the Indians

2002· article· en· W2554329547 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kerry Wilkins

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace (University of Toronto) · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAmerican Environmental and Regional History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canada’s constitution assigns to the provinces general power to govern the lands and resources located within their boundaries but reserves to the federal order of government the authority in relation to “Lands reserved for the Indians” Under Canadian law, the mere existence of this federal power imposes substantial restrictions on provincial authority to regulate these lands and the interests in them. How, then, is one to determine which, if any, provincial measures having to do with land have legal force on, or in application to, such lands? And which lands, in the end, are subject, under mainstream Canadian law, to provincial, and which exclusively to federal, authority? Release of the Delgamuukw decision in late 1997 made the task of answering the first of these questions more urgent and the task of answering the second more difficult. We now know that “Lands reserved for the Indians” include not only Indian reserves set aside deliberately but all lands subject to valid Indian claims of Aboriginal title. We do not yet know which lands those are, but we do know that non Aboriginal people believe they have rights and interests, derived from provincial authorities, in many of the lands that are in dispute. The legal status of those putative rights and interests is now open to question. This article explores these issues from within the matrix of existing Canadian constitutional law. It argues that provinces, acting as such, have no power to determine or to regulate matters relating to the ownership, possession, occupation, use or disposition of Indian lands, even in the absence of countervailing federal measures, and it doubts that any mechanism now exists in Canadian law to extend, for practical purposes, the reach of provincial measures to such lands. It suggests a test for use in ascertaining which provincial measures generally can, and which cannot, apply on lands reserved for the Indians; it wonders, on constitutional grounds, how provincial law can authorize enforcement on such lands of provincial measures that do apply there; and it documents some of the challenges now facing both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal peoples interested in clarifying which lands are Indian lands and which are not.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.696
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

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 studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.177 · 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.

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

Citations3
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpace (University of Toronto)Same topicAmerican Environmental and Regional HistoryFrench-language works237,207