Bibliographic record
Abstract
With a renewed focus on concluding modern treaties and other forms of self-governance agreements with First Nations the federal governments needs to examine new methods for assisting First Nations resolve overlapping territorial disputes.Treaties and Aboriginal Government Negotiations-West is the branch of Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada that is tasked with negotiating treaties in B.C. and ensuring the governments "duty to consult" is met in regards to overlaps.Overlaps are geographic areas where more than one First Nation asserts Aboriginal rights and title.In British Columbia this issue is especially prevalent as the majority of First Nations in the province did not sign treaties with the federal government in the 19 th and 20 th century as colonization was occurring.In B.C. each First Nations has at least one overlap area with another.Having recommenced treaty negotiations in 1993 through the B.C. Treaty process, overlaps and the inability to develop a process that facilitates there resolution in the modern day legal context has caused the conclusion of treaties to be delayed and led to legal challenges for others.If modern day treaties are to avoid legal challenges by Indigenous communities with overlapping territory new methods and approaches to the resolution of overlaps needs to be examined.This report aims to answer the following research question:1. What tools and approaches can be used or supported by Treaties and Aboriginal Government Negotiations-West and the Crown in supporting First Nations, inside and outside the treaty process, develop mechanisms to resolve overlapping territorial claims?The secondary research questions related to this are: a.Why are overlaps a contentious issue?b.How have overlaps traditionally been resolved and how are they currently resolved?c.What are the key barriers to the resolution of overlaps?d.How can aspects of Indigenous law and dispute resolution mechanisms be applied to the tools available to TAG-NW to assist First Nations in resolving overlap disputes? MethodologyThis report uses a qualitative approach in answering the questions above.A literature review was conducted to provide an overview of traditional Indigenous laws and dispute resolution mechanism, while focusing on key aspects that may hold value in resolving overlaps.This was done through an analysis of the available literature from academic journals, independent research reports, books, working and conference papers.A jurisdictional scan was also conducted to examine how other countries are dealing with unresolved Indigenous land claims and the impacts that overlapping territorial disputes are having in delaying claims resolution.The two countries selected for the jurisdiction scan were Australia and Nicaragua.Australia was selected due to having a similar legal system to 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 | 0.027 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.025 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.001 |
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".