MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2753386623 · doi:10.60082/0829-3929.1271

Shared Path: Bridging Indigenous and Settler Notions of Urban Planning: An Annotated Interview with Carolyn King

2009· article· en· W2753386623 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Sarah Weinberger

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Law and Social Policy · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousNegotiationHuman settlementSettlement (finance)Power (physics)Transformative learningGeographySociologyHistoryPolitical scienceArchaeologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When Carolyn King was the Chief, the Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation were in the middle of an almost twenty-five year negotiation of what would be one of the largest specific land claim settlements in Canada’s history. In 1986, the Mississaugas launched a land claim, alleging that the Crown did not comply with the original terms of the Toronto Purchase, taking more land and paying less money than had been agreed upon 200 years earlier. In 2010, Canada agreed to settle for $145 million, deeming lands covering much of Toronto, Burlington Bay, and the Toronto Islands as “traditional territory.” But the traditional territory in fact covers a much larger swath of Southwestern Ontario, including the municipalities now known as Hamilton, Kitchener, Brantford, Caledonia, Hagersville, Mississauga, and Toronto. Southwestern Ontario, Canada’s economic driver, is the most emblematic example of the transformative power of colonization on a landscape in Canada. Thus, it is in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) where Carolyn King focuses much of her work of making visible the vital and continuing presence of Indigenous peoples. Carolyn served as the first female Chief of the Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation from 1997-1999. She has been dedicated to First Nations community development for over twenty-five years as a consultant, teacher, researcher, and planner. She is also a leader and innovator in the area of Indigenous land use planning and is the co-executive director of the Shared Path Consultation Initiative, an organization that focuses on the “intersection of urban planning processes and Aboriginal and treaty rights within Ontario.” On 30 January 2017, I met with Carolyn to discuss her perspectives on the work to be done to bridge the divide between Indigenous and settler notions of land use planning. The following is a reflection on our conversation of how planning engages and intersects with themes of racialization, access, Indigenous law, and technology. Transcribed segments of our interview are placed in conversation with perspectives from academics from both Indigenous and settler paradigms, and then are supplemented with my own reflections. My aim is not to draw any conclusions or make recommendations for better bridging the divide between Indigenous and settler understandings of land use, but rather to provide an introduction and pose questions related to some of Carolyn’s views.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.478
Threshold uncertainty score0.950

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0390.023
Scholarly communication0.0070.007
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0040.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.343
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Law and Social PolicySame topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207