MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2624880133 · doi:10.11575/prism/34283

Defining Aboriginal Rights to Water in Alberta: Do They Still "Exist"? How Extensive are They?

2010· article· en· W2624880133 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Monique Passelac-Ross, Christina M. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEnvironmental law and policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGovernment of CanadaUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsPolitical scienceBusinessEnvironmental planningEnvironmental ethicsGeographyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This report explores some fundamental questions in relation to the water rights of Aboriginal peoples in Alberta. Aboriginal peoples have long asserted that water is essential to life. They view water as the lifeblood of the earth. The perceived threat to the health and integrity of river systems is a threat to their own integrity and survival. They share growing concerns over the future of water supplies in Alberta with non-Aboriginal peoples. They affirm that they have fundamental rights with respect to water, along with responsibilities to ensure that the integrity of waters is protected, responsibilities which they want to share with government and all water users. There is uncertainty concerning the nature and extent of Aboriginal rights to water, both on reserve and off-reserve. The report addresses only some of the questions that arise in connection with this subject, namely the origin, nature and scope of the rights. The main question that we seek to answer is whether Aboriginal peoples in Alberta can claim rights to water, and if so, what is the status of these rights by comparison with other provincially recognized water rights.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.980
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.309 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen MINDSame topicEnvironmental law and policyFrench-language works237,207