The Nisga'a Treaty: What Future for the Inherent Right to Aboriginal Self- Government?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
espanolEn aout 1998, apres un siecle de lutte, les Nisga’a du nord-ouest de la ColombieBritannique signaient un traite. Les gouvernements federal et provincial reconnaissaient ainsi le droit inherent a l’autonomie gouvernementale des Nisga’a. A travers une analyse des termes du traite et du discours autour de cette question tel que developpe par les leaders autochtones depuis Charlottetown en 1992, Claude Denis revele que les pressions gouvernementales federales et provinciales ont altere le sens meme de cette notion dans le cas des Nisga’a. Il s’interroge pour determiner si un tel systeme d’autonomie gouvernementale accomplit reellement les buts que se sont fixes les leaders autochtones. Il termine en soulignant que le colonialisme est encore tres ancre dans la mentalite et les institutions canadiennes. EnglishThis paper presents an analysis of the treaty signed in August 1998 by the Nisga’a indigenous nation, the government of Canada and the government of British Columbia. Widely seen and hailed as the model for dozens of unresolved treaty and self-government negotiations, the Nisga’a Final Agreement is the outcome of a century-long quest for recognition and autonomy by the Nisga’a people, who live in the northwest of present-day British Columbia. The Nisga’a treaty ostensibly recognizes the inherent right to Aboriginal self-government which, in the last several years of constitutional debate in Canada, has appeared as a key item on First Nations’ lists of claims. After outlining the treaty’s contents regarding in particular the proposed Nisga’a legal capacity, justice system and relation to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the analysis compares the treaty’s terms with the discourse of inherent right, as it has developed in particular in the context of the Charlottetown Accord of 1992. It finds that the constraints imposed on the Nisga’a negotiators by the Canadian and B.C. governments alter beyond recognition the meaning of “inherent right.” As well, it questions the extent to which such a system of self-government is likely to accomplish the stated goals of the First Nations’ leadership, of re-establishing indigenous ways of life in Canada.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".