MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2792516080 · doi:10.1080/14662043.2017.1422418

The Far North Act in Ontario, Canada: a sons of the soil conflict in the making?

2018· article· en· W2792516080 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCommonwealth and Comparative Politics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMining and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousPoliticsTreatyPolitical scienceGovernment (linguistics)StakeholderLand rightsEnvironmental ethicsPublic administrationConceptual frameworkColonialismCustomary landEnvironmental planningGeographySociologyLawLand tenureSocial scienceEcologyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2010, the Government of Ontario, Canada passed the controversial Far North Act. The Act purportedly aims to promote land use planning and sustainable development while recognising Aboriginal and Treaty rights. There are, however, early warning signs that the Act could be a breeding ground for future conflict between Indigenous peoples and other stakeholder groups. This article adopts a ‘sons of the soil’ conceptual framework to explore the mechanisms that could give rise to the escalation of Indigenous vs. non-Indigenous conflict. The findings provide important insights for theorising the contentious politics around land and territory in diverse settler-colonial contexts.

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.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.422
Threshold uncertainty score0.429

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.212 · 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