The River’s Legal Personhood: A Branch Growing on Canada’s Multi-Juridical Living Tree
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Relationships with rivers in British Columbia are often imbued with social and material toxicity. Learning from three sources of law in British Columbia—Indigenous, Canadian, and international law—this article draws out one potential remedy to the imbalanced relationships between humans and rivers through exploring the viability of declaring the rights of nature in accordance with the socio-cultural and doctrinal frameworks embedded in these three sources of law. By taking seriously storied precedents and governing practices from the ‘Namgis, Heiltsuk, and W̱SÁNEĆ Nations, this article is guided by their water relations, governance, and legal orders. In expanding Canadian conceptions of personhood, challenging anthropocentrism within section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and expanding section 35 constitutional protections, this article also leverages Canadian legal concepts and protections for remedying river relations. Drawing upon the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) further guides the process of affirming the rights of rivers, especially in light of legislation that has codified UNDRIP domestically. Braiding these three sources of law indicates that subsequent rights of nature cases should be rooted in the interpretative and analytical framework of Canada’s multi-juridical living tree.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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".