The Trials and Tribulations of Ontario's Mining Act: The Duty to Consult and Anishinaabek Law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
After a series of high profile disputes pitting statutory mining rights against constitutionally protected Aboriginal rights, Ontario finally amended its Mining Act. This paper argues that Ontario's amended regime still fails to comply with the Crown's duty to consult and accommodate Aboriginal peoples in at least ways. First, some areas of Ontario are subject to Aboriginal title claims. Recording a mining claim within Aboriginal title territory triggers the duty to consult, but the amended Mining Act still does not require consultation prior to the recording stage. Second, at least some treaties in Ontario, such as Treaty Nine, protect the right to implement the laws of the First Nations signatories, including Anishinaabek laws. The early exploration activities permitted by the Mining Act violate Anishinaabek laws about land use and thus adversely impact a treaty right, again with no requirement to engage in prior consultation. Third, the new regulations run afoul of both Anishinaabe law and Canadian law by failing to allow sufficient time for Anishinaabek decision-making processes. For these reasons, the amended Mining Act is still unconstitutional and another round of amendments is required.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| 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".