Reconciliation and Indigenous resurgence in the Ontario Far North and Mushkegowuk Cree land use planning processes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The introduction of Ontario’s Far North Initiative in 2008 and resulting Far North Act (2010) set in motion efforts to create land use plans in the northern regions of the Canadian province. Ontario’s approach to reconciling Aboriginal and treaty rights with provincial planning was through a community-based land use planning process, to which Mushkegowuk Council responded with a regional process based on the Omushkegowuk nation. The paper argues that the goals and approach of Mushkegowuk Council were reflective of indigenous resurgence principles, to which Ontario’s community-based planning objectives were a significant obstacle. The paper will closely examine the challenges Mushkegowuk Council faced in their attempt to assert an alternative to Ontario’s Far North planning, and the implications for Mushkegowuk Council and other indigenous communities and organizations involved in land use planning. The paper will conclude with a discussion of how the case study exemplifies the broader difficulties of achieving indigenous driven planning as resurgence necessarily confronts the institutions and ambitions of Settler governments.
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 | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.037 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".