WSÁNEĆ Legal Theory and the Fuel Spill at SELEKTEL (Goldstream River)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SELEK̵TEL̵ (Goldstream River), on Coast Salish territory on Southern Vancouver Island in British Columbia, is an important salmon spawning river and fishing location for the WSÁNEĆ (Saanich) people. On April 16, 2011, it was also the site of a diesel and gasoline spill. In this article, I explore the processes of revitalizing WSÁNEĆ law and how we might think about the revitalization of WSÁNEĆ law in the context of this fuel spill. While I do not present a definitive statement of the application of WSÁNEĆ law, I explore what is needed in order to understand WSÁNEĆ law on its own terms. I turn to WSÁNEĆ stories to ground my understanding of WSÁNEĆ law in a different cosmological and ontological framework, and begin to explore the implications this different framework has for understanding the fuel spill and a WSÁNEĆ approach to “law”. I argue that this framework requires a greater attribution of “being” and “agency” to land, with an emphasis on repairing and maintaining relationships in an encompassing way. In exploring the implications of this shift in framework, I problematize the notions of “jurisdiction” and “remedy”. Specifically, rather than approaching the relationship to land through the idea of jurisdictional authority over it, I argue that WSÁNEĆ law develops a perspective centred on our mutual responsibilities with and to land. I also argue that the notion of jurisdiction can compartmentalize and limit WSÁNEĆ law’s attention to the encompassing nature of our relationships to land. Similarly, as opposed to engaging WSÁNEĆ law only to find a remedy, we must step back and consider how the harm of the fuel spill would be characterized within the distinctive framework of WSÁNEĆ law.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.046 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".