Canadian Federalism, Indigenous-state Relations, and the Algonquin Land Claim
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Algonquin Land Claim negotiations have been ongoing for over 25 years in Ontario and will be the province’s first modern-day constitutionally protected treaty. Traditional territories of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg under claim include areas in the Ottawa River Valley and the City of Ottawa itself. As a result, this land claim is unique in jurisdictional complexity, situated in urban landscapes that are heavily populated and developed, as well as rural areas that feature cottage country, hunting and fishing camps, provincial parks and natural resource projects. To answer the question: what is the process for negotiating lands for transfer to Indigenous communities within urban and rural contexts? This research investigates the Algonquin Land Claim case study within Canada’s current jurisprudential landscape of Indigenous sovereignty and recognition, and the implications it has for land use planning in Ontario. As a practical profession operating within relationships between Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities, the study explores planning practices in the context of negotiating a modern-day treaty. This recount of Canada’s legislative history and its interaction with Indigenous nations infuses many references to the fundamental attributes of Canadian federalism, Indigenous jurisdiction and the tensions that lie between the two concepts.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.038 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".