Aquaculture law and policy in Canada and the duty to consult with Aboriginal peoples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In November 2003, a Mi’kmaq elder from the community of Eskasoni launched a court action seeking to stop seismic testing in the waters off Cape Breton. He claimed that the government of Nova Scotia had failed to consult with his First Nation before issuing an approval to allow the testing by Corridor Resources, as part of its oil and gas exploration program.1 Aboriginal communities throughout Canada assert they must be consulted before governments or corporations make decisions that could impair the constitutional rights of Aboriginal peoples. Invocation of the duty to consult as an independent source of legal entitlement is increasing. This chapter explains why these claims are being made and how they may operate in the specific context of aquaculture. Our objective is to illuminate the historical and political context of the duty to consult, and to canvass the responses of courts and governments to date. Unfortunately, the law is at a nascent stage of development, as the courts are struggling to give substance and structure to this novel doctrine.2 Nonetheless, it is possible to identify basic themes and to outline the contours of the duty to consult as it presently is being defined by courts in response to urgent and complicated litigation.
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 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.034 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| 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".