MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3135685231 · doi:10.3138/cpp.2020-017

Recognizing Indigenous Rights in Canada: Property Rights and Natural Resource Values

2021· article· en· W3135685231 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Ian Keay, Cherie Metcalf

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Public Policy · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicLaw, Economics, and Judicial Systems
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousEvent studySupreme courtNatural resourceProperty rightsResource (disambiguation)Stock (firearms)Natural experimentValue (mathematics)Market valueIndigenous rightsBusinessEconomicsLawPolitical scienceGeographyFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The recognition of Aboriginal rights in s. 35(1) of the Constitution Act transformed the legal landscape in Canada. In this article, we empirically estimate the economic impact of this transformation on the value of Canadian natural resource firms. We focus on six landmark Supreme Court of Canada precedents that are often viewed as having imposed significant economic effects on Canadian resource firms. We use event studies to test these claims, measuring changes in resource firms’ share prices on the Toronto Stock Exchange after each of the landmark rulings. A total of 2,110 firm events allow us to estimate market responses at the individual firm level. Our findings show that although the decisions triggered statistically and economically significant changes in the value of Canadian resource firms, these changes were not uniformly negative, and they varied widely in size across decisions, industries, and firm characteristics.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.091
Threshold uncertainty score0.660

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0050.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.168 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Public PolicySame topicLaw, Economics, and Judicial SystemsFrench-language works237,207