The Peel Watershed Case: Implications for Aboriginal Consultation and Land Use Planning in Alberta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As in Alberta, the Government of the Yukon has been working on comprehensive land-use planning legislation. The Yukon Court of Appeal decision considered the Peel Watershed Regional Plan that covers a large underpopulated and largely undeveloped area of the Yukon, with the potential for oil and gas and hard rock mineral development, in the context of the duty of the Crown to consult with First Nations communities in the land use planning process. This publication reviews the Peel Watershed decision and its implications for land use planning and consultation with the First Nations in Alberta. The paper addresses issues that include the status of land use planning consultation as a treaty right, procedural vs. substantive breaches of the duty to consult, and the potential for unilateral Crown decision-making in both contexts. The broader “spirit” of government obligation, the “honour of the Crown,” is considered in light of the recent SCC court decision.
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 | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.038 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".