Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1983, British Columbia granted Carrier Lumber Ltd a license to engage in industrial logging within the territory of the Tsilhqot’in Nation. The Xeni Gwet’in First Nations government (part of Tsilhqot’in Nation) sought an injunction to halt Carrier. For the Xeni Gwent’in, the proposed logging would destroy the forest in which they lived and hunted. In order to gain the power to stop the proposed logging, the Xeni Gwet’in fought for a declaration of Aboriginal Title. After a lengthy trial, the Supreme Court granted their claim. This may sound like a story about victory for the Xeni Gwet’in people. After a long, and hard fought battle, they succeeded in gaining Aboriginal Title. What this characterization misses is that, in order to gain Title, the Xeni Gwet’in had to accept not only the process imposed on them by the Canadian government but also the implicit assumptions that the government relies on to justify its current (and, to a degree, past) relationship with Aboriginal peoples. Thus, Aboriginal Title requires that Aboriginal peoples choose between protecting the land by accepting these assumptions, or rejecting the assumptions but, in most cases, losing the land. In New Zealand as part of the process of deciding land claims, a new option has been added. Instead of granting Aboriginal Title to land, in some cases, the land itself is granted legal personhood. Such an approach de-couples the question of the political relationship between Aboriginal peoples and the government from the fight to protect the land. I argue that there is great value in separating these questions. By doing so, the government can better support the autonomy of Aboriginal peoples and be more inclusive of alternative perspectives This approach (often endorsed in environmental philosophy) will be beneficial to non-Aboriginal peoples as well.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".