Whose Border? Contested Geographies and Columbia River Treaty Modernization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores the links between contemporary bordering processes, Indigenous nations traditional territories, and transboundary water governance processes, using the case of the Columbia River Treaty (CRT) modernization process. We posit the Columbia River is shared not just by two nations, but also by multiple Indigenous nations with various inter-nation borders. To-date, the implications of this in practice do not appear to mean a re-imagination of borders, changes in legal authority for CRT renegotiation and implementation, or rethinking the state-centric institutions in which governance of the Columbia River is based. Three primary themes emerged from the empirical data that illustrate: (1) a reaffirmation of state-centric discourse on borders and bordering processes in CRT modernization, while (2) at the same time we see changes in the legal landscape in Canada and the U.S. that inform the obligations of colonial governments to move towards collaboration and shared governance with Indigenous nations on a government-to-government basis on issues impacting Indigenous interests. And, (3) emerging are the seeds of governance structures that seek to engage Indigenous nations within CRT renegotiation and implementation, including potentially providing a seat at the renegotiation table and including Indigenous nations within implementation structures for a modernized CRT.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".