Revisiting the Labrador Boundary Decision to Include Indigenous Interpretations of the Region
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines the lack of Indigenous considerations in settling the Labrador boundary dispute between Quebec and Newfoundland. The Dominion of Newfoundland granted timber permits to the Grand River Pulp and Lumber Company in Labrador in 1902, an act Quebec contested, given its claim to the territory. The final decision by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC) in 1927 largely relied on Newfoundland’s definition of the word coast, granting Newfoundland significant territory at Quebec’s expense. Ignored throughout the process were the Indigenous peoples of Northern Quebec and the Labrador region. This is significant and, as our analysis of the Inuit, Innut, and Algonquian peoples reveals, their concept of the Labrador territory differed greatly from that of both governments. Influenced by their semi-nomadic lifestyle and trade patterns, their understanding of the Labrador territory was larger than that conceived of by Newfoundland or Quebec. This is substantial and provides us with a fuller understanding of the Labrador boundary dispute, and how the inclusion of Indigenous understandings in the dispute may have impacted decision making. On a broader scale, the paper contributes to regional scholarship on the historical relationships between the governments of Quebec and Newfoundland and the Indigenous peoples of the Labrador region. The fact the JCPC ignored known Indigenous knowledge and worldviews is a reflection of Canada’s colonial history.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".