Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although there have been efforts from both federal and local governments towards reconciliation in recent times, there are very few modern treaties in B.C. An important component of reconciliation is repairing relations between the government and First Nations and treaties are an important way of doing so. Treaties according to the BC Treaty Commission are legal agreements between First Nations, and the provincial and federal government that ensures Indigenous rights and promotes reconciliation. Specifically, modern treaties can enable Indigenous self-governance, self-determination, economic sufficiency and land ownership. In 1991, BC Task Force joined and made new recommendations to improve the BC treaty process, leading to new provincial legislation about treaty-making in BC. As a result, the local government and First Nations made stronger efforts to engage in treaty negotiations across the province. Although several First Nations have participated in the treaty-making process, BC has only successfully signed seven modern treaties. Of the seven, the Tsawwassen treaty is the only treaty in an urban area. This paper aims to explore why there are so few modern treaties between the local government and First Nations in an urban context. Ultimately, this paper will draw from the Tsawwassen, Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh Nations to discuss the barriers that explain the limited number of modern treaties in BC and why some First Nations groups are reluctant to engage in treaty agreements with the local government.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.003 |
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".