A geography of reconciliation: An effective and lawful framework for achieving clarity of First Nations territorial jurisdiction in British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
What is the best way to achieve and sustain clarity of First Nations territorial jurisdiction in British Columbia (BC)? The question is critical to addressing the legal imperative of Indigenous-Crown reconciliation; that is, balancing the rights of Indigenous peoples with the interests of society as a whole through negotiation. Reconciliation requires dialog, and effective dialog is almost impossible amidst conflict concerning which Indigenous polities have legal authority to negotiate concerning specific territories. This dissertation argues that hybrid law – involving the harmonization of state and Indigenous legal systems – should be the basis of common understanding and legitimacy for determining which Indigenous polities have legal authority to negotiate concerning areas subject to “overlapping claims”. Drawing upon the experiences of BC, New Zealand, and Australia, the study concludes that First Nations and the Crown in BC should work collaboratively to empower an independent Indigenous Territories Tribunal to oversee a program of regional inquiries across the province. Regional inquiries should involve: a) research, b) community hearings that empower Indigenous people to articulate their history and legal systems, c) assessments of the character and strength of claims, d) recommendations, and e) the development of Indigenous Jurisdiction Agreements that express complex Indigenous territorialities, hybrid law, and the Indigenous polities that have the legal authority to negotiate with the Crown concerning specific territories. Clarity of Indigenous territorial jurisdiction is a critical aspect of addressing the legal imperative of Indigenous-Crown reconciliation. This dissertation proposes a framework for achieving a geography of reconciliation: that is, an exhaustive map of BC that clearly communicates which First Nation polities have legal authority to negotiate where.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".