Power-sharing between the Cree and Québec governments in Eeyou Itschee (Québec, Canada): sovereignties, complexity, and equity under the Adapted Forestry Regime of the Paix des Braves
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Adapted Forestry Regime (AFR) of the Paix des Braves agreement is an important stepping-stone in the long process of involving Indigenous Peoples in state management of forestlands in Canada. This paper explores the challenges raised by a process involving the Cree nation and the Québec provincial government in the implementation of a collaborative approach to forest management on Cree traditional lands. We present three key processes that have contributed to the AFR since 2002, each of which led to further agreements, committees and processes. While the Crees have obtained additional powers for forestland management through the AFR, our analysis reveals the complexity of these processes that must deal with both political and technical issues that are often closely intricated one with the other. Ultimately, it is the Crees who bear the heaviest burden of the compromises that must be made implementing this collaborative process.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".