Redefining the Lexicon of Power, Envisioning the Future: The Atikamekw Nehirowisiw Nation and the Comprehensive Land Claims Negotiations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Treaties and land claims negotiations between state institutions and Indigenous Peoples are necessarily tied to issues of territorial entanglements, resistance and coexistence. Regularly, studies of these negotiation dynamics make explicit the articulation and differentiation of Indigenous “life projects,” referring to the embodiment of socio-cultural desires, visions, aspirations and purposes – vis-à-vis neoliberal development projects. This article focuses precisely on the dynamics of negotiation in which the Atikamekw Nehirowisiwok (north-central Quebec) and state institutions have been involved for the last 40 years under the Comprehensive Land Claims Policy. More specifically, it addresses different policy mechanisms such as the extinguishment policy, burden of proof, debt obligations and results-based approach that are part and parcel of the negotiation process. Without disregarding the unequal power relations, this article also presents the motivations and aspirations expressed by the Atikamekw Nehirowisiwok in the negotiation process. It explains how their engagements are mobilised into nehirowisiw orocowewin – that is, a larger and deeper political and cultural project relating to the affirmation of nehirowisiw miro pimatisiwin, an Indigenous way of life and living well that is tied to the maintenance of a creative and open-ended coexistence based on reciprocity, complementarity, autonomy and consensus.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".