Tsilhqot'in Nation v British Columbia: Aboriginal Title, Indigenous Resurgence, and the Politics of Recognition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis situates Tsilhqot'in Nation v British Columbia (2014) within the discourse of the politics of recognition and argues that Tsilqhot'in is a limited victory.Tsilhqot'in altered the test for Aboriginal title to include semi-nomadic Indigenous lifestyles.In doing so, it provides leverage to Indigenous groups that never could have acquired Aboriginal title within common law's previous intensive use of land criteria.However, Tsilhqot'in does not completely alter the structures of settler colonialism's law because it fails to dismantle the law's hierarchical and assimilative nature.The Supreme Court reaffirmed the Crown's unjustified sovereignty over Indigenous peoples by establishing a test to infringe Aboriginal title.Perhaps the courtroom is not the space for finding justice.This thesis attempts to re-conceptualize ideas about Indigenous resurgence, law, and recognition through the use of critical discourse and Indigenous politics.affirmation of the self-determination of marginalized individuals.I argue that the Tsilhqot'in decision alone may not completely transform the topography 2 of the common law, as it does not dismantle common law's oppressive nature that seeks to (re)construct, and assimilate Indigenous subjectivities into its own language and parameters.3 Nonetheless, the decision provides Indigenous groups valuable insight into how their own interests in land can be constitutionally recognized and affirmed.Tsilhqot'in alters the test for Aboriginal title to include semi-nomadic Indigenous lifestyles.It provides leverage to groups that never could have acquired Aboriginal title over large sections of traditional territory due to common law's previous intensive use of land criteria.4 The decision also states that even if there is a potential to make an Aboriginal title claim, the government must consult with and accommodate the Indigenous community.5 Moreover, the Crown must gain consent and not just consult with Indigenous communities when it has an interest 1 Coulthard, Glen.Red Skin, White Masks: Rejecting the Colonial Politics of Recognition.University of Minnesota Press, 2014, 27. 2 By topography, I mean the structural relationships of Canada's legal system, which include but are not limited to the common law's relationship to colonialism, bio-politics, and sovereignty.3 Some scholars like Taiaiake Alfred suggest that by simply participating in the confines of settler colonial institutions we are legitimizing the false sovereignty of the state and the continued dispossession of Indigenous peoples.See, Alfred, T., and E.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".