MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W280011033

On 'Modest Proposals' to Further Reduce the Aboriginal Landbase by Privatizing Reserve Land©

2007· article· en· W280011033 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Susan L. Campbell

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian journal of native studies · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAllotmentPolitical scienceEthnologyPoliticsGeographyLawEconomySociologyEconomics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract / Resume This responds to Christopher Alcantara's Property Rights on Canadian Indian that appeared in XXI11:2 (2003) of the CJNS. Some special interest groups-mainly but not exclusively of the political far Right-have suggested that privatizing Canadian 'Indian Reserve' land would facilitate ameliorating the dreadful conditions endemic to Reserves. This paper explores the experience of U.S. First Nations when Reservation land was privatized. Under the 1887 General Allotment Act (known as the Dawes Act) the U.S. Aboriginal land-base shrank from approximately 150 million acres to only about 48 million by 1935, when the Dawes Act was reversed. L'article repond a l'article de Christopher Alcantara intitule « Individual Property Rights on Canadian Indian Reserves », qui a paru dans le n° 2 du volume 23 de la CJNS. Certains groupes d'interets, qui proviennent principalement, mais non exclusivement de !'extreme-droite politique, ont suggere que la privatisation des terres des reserves indiennes du Canada faciliterait l'amelioration des conditions deplorables qui sont endemiques dans les reserves. L'article explore l'experience des Premieres nations des Etats-Unis ou les terres de reserve ont ete privatisees. En vertu de la General Allotment Act de 1887, connue sous le nom de « Dawes Act », l'assise territoriale des Autochtones americains s'est retrecie pour passer d'environ 150 millions d'acres a environ 48 millions d'acres en 1935, lors que la Dawes Act a ete revoquee. Reform is always afoot in the field of Indian affairs. -Vine Deloria Jr. (1933-2005) & C.M. Lytle1 Over a decade ago the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples recommended that Canada provide First Nations with lands sufficient in size and quality to foster Aboriginal economic self-reliance and cultural and political autonomy.2 Although according to the 2001 Canadian Census 'status Indians' numbered only 558,175, Aboriginal people constitute at least 3.5 percent of the population.3 Reserves account for under 0.5 percent of the land - 6.5 million acres fragmented into 2,242 tracts with an average size of only 2.89 acres.4 There are powerful special interest groups in Canada that, rather than appreciating how much has been appropriated from Aboriginal people at cut-rate prices, remain keen to be rid of the nuisance of treaties, land-'claims' cases, constitutional negotiations involving Aboriginal rights, time-consuming environmental impact studies, and the costs and embarrassments associated with the Department of Indian Affairs. Given their importance to people living on many Canadian Reserves (or who would if the Indian befand other factors allowed), 'Certificates of Possession' (CPs) have been an unaccountably neglected topic for research. This was demonstrated by Christopher Alcantara's 2003 Canadian Journal of Native Studies article on Property Rights on Canadian Indian Reserves, a compressed version of his 2002 University of Calgary M.A. thesis Certificates of Possession: A Solution to the Aboriginal Housing Crisis.5 Alcantara's thesis supervisor was U.S.born and educated Reform-Conservative political scientist Tom Flanagan. Professor Flanagan has made a career, academic and otherwise, of opposing Indigenous rights, most recently those of the original Australians.6 How prominent Flanagan is amongst Canada's leading new Conservatives is illustrated most pointedly by his recent book Harper's Team: Behind the Scenes in the Conservative Rise to Power.7 We now turn to consider the fact that, in many parts of Canada, CPs represent the most common type of Reserve land-holding6 and the thin edge of the proverbial wedge for the derogation of Aboriginal rights by those who are politely termed 'neo-Conservatives.'9 Among the more recent, if least subtle, expressions of this was Road to Prosperity - Five Steps To Change Aboriginal Policy, a September 2005 pronouncement from the Calgary-based Canadian Taxpayers Federation 'Centre for Aboriginal Policy Change. …

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)0.003
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.528
Threshold uncertainty score0.938

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.005
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0070.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0410.004

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.353 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations4
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian journal of native studies→Same topicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights→French-language works237,207→