Lis and land tenure: An examination of fuzzy theory as a means of assessing aboriginal land rights
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the wake of the Mabo decision from Australia and the Delgamuukw decision from Canada, it is clear that Aboriginal Title to land can only be lost through cession by treaty, abandonment, conquest, or legitimate legislation of the Crown. What is less clear is the effect that legitimate Crown Grants and Certificates of Title (accompanied by parcel boundary surveys) have on claims to aboriginal servitudes. Such servitudes represent non-territorial aboriginal title, and are akin to easements in statute law. Some of the tension over title to, and use of land can be defused by using fuzzy theory to define zones of overlapping rights in land. Such a methodology is similar to the continuing use of general boundaries in which a feature (sometimes ambulatory) defines the spatial extent of a parcel, allows sites of spiritual significance (sometimes used only seasonally) to be defined, and has application to New Zealand and Australia. Waahi Tapu could be thus defined (if not demarcated), thus according with the principle of the silent files used by the Ngai Tahu in Canterbury. Gustafsen Lake, British Columbia, Canada is used as a case study. The context is that the Shuswap peoples have never ceded their land by way of treaty to the Crown. The tragedy is that when Percy Rossette and a score of his friends used the land for a Sundance ceremony during the summer of 1995, the police blew up their truck, shot and wounded a woman, and killed a dog. The explanation can be traced to an 1892 Crown Grant, to the present use of the site for ranching, to the natives fencing an area larger than the Sundance site, to persistent opposition by most Shuswap peoples to ceding their land, to a treaty claims process intent on extinguishing aboriginal title, to a brilliant if quixotic lawyer, and to politicians keen to uphold the rule of law.
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 | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".