After Tsilhqot'In Nation: The Aboriginal Title Question in Canada's Maritime Provinces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This essay analyzes Aboriginal title in the Maritime Provinces in light of the Supreme Court of Canada's Tsilhqot’in Nation decision with the aim of assessing how future title litigation from the region may be addressed in the courts. The essay first reviews the Supreme Court’s ruling in Tsilhqot’in, specifically the Court’s adoption of the territorial approach to Aboriginal title claims. On the basis of this approach, this essay argues that Aboriginal title existed in the region at the time of the assertion of British sovereignty. While this essay concludes that Aboriginal title undoubtedly existed in the region, it stops short of attempting to determine precisely where it may have existed. Such a determination would require a depth of research not possible here. Having concluded that title existed, this essay then reviews the legal framework governing the extinguishment of Aboriginal title to assess whether Aboriginal title has been extinguished in the Maritime Provinces. It concludes that Aboriginal title has likely not been extinguished on a large scale, a conclusion which strongly suggests that Aboriginal title continues to exist in the region today. The essay concludes by pointing to some further issues raised by this conclusion.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| 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".