Unstable Properties: Aboriginal Title and the Claim of British Columbia. By Patricia Burke Wood and David A. Rossiter
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Unstable Properties is a political, legal, and geographical history of British Columbia. It spans disciplines and time, up to the present. The main focus is nonetheless since the Supreme Court of Canada acknowledged the existence of Aboriginal title in 1973 in the groundbreaking Calder case. That decision, the authors contend, destabilized the political geography of the province by undercutting the colonial assumption that the Indigenous nations lack sovereignty and land rights. This assumption has always been contested by the Indigenous nations, who have fought long and hard in the political and legal arenas to have their rights to land and political authority acknowledged by the colonial newcomers. After Calder, the government of British Columbia remained in denial and sought to maintain the illusion that the Crown had acquired territorial sovereignty and all the land and natural resources in the province. By the early 1990s, this position was no longer tenable. The province then joined the Canadian government in negotiations with the Indigenous peoples to settle their land claims, in order to stabilize the natural resources segment of the economy and provide certainty to private property rights derived from Crown grants. Although a few modern-day treaties have been entered into, most Indigenous nations have found the political avenue unsatisfactory. They have turned to the courts, where a number of favorable Supreme Court decisions have provided them with more acknowledgement of their rights than the province has been willing to concede. However, the Supreme Court will only go so far. It has not questioned Crown sovereignty or the authority of Parliament to enact, without consultation, legislation that may impact on Indigenous rights.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.033 | 0.006 |
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".