Addressing the Challenge of Overlapping Claims in Implementing the Vancouver Island (Douglas) Treaties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Indigenous social and legal orders are a source for addressing the challenge of overlapping claims in exercising historic treaty rights in the territories of neighbouring non-treaty Indigenous Peoples. The Vancouver Island Treaties (also known as the Douglas Treaties) of the 1850s made commitments that signatory communities could continue to hunt on unoccupied lands and carry on their fisheries as formerly. Today, as urban, agricultural and industrial forestry have constrained where people can exercise their treaty rights locally, individuals from these nations exercise harvesting rights in “extended territories” of their neighbours. Through detailing several court cases where these treaty rights were challenged by the Crown and the texts of modern-day treaty documents, I show how Coast Salish people continue to draw on local values and legal principles to articulate their distinctive vision of territory and community, both engaging and subverting divisive “overlapping claims” discourses. Not only First Nations but the state, through the judiciary, Crown counsel and land claims negotiators, also, at times, acknowledge and recognise the principles of kin and land tenure that are the foundation for addressing the challenges of overlapping claims.
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 | 0.013 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.049 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| 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".