The Geography of the Crown: Reflections on Mikisew Cree and Williams Lake
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, we argue for the importance of the geographic underpinnings of the concepts of “the Crown”, the “honour of the Crown”, “fiduciary duty”, and the “duty to consult” in cases concerning Aboriginal title and rights in Canada. Recent decisions, including Williams Lake (2018) and Mikisew Cree (2018), while further developing and refining these concepts, continue to skirt around the fundamentally geographic issue of territorial sovereignty. We argue that both political and legal discussions fail to recognize fully how the honour of the Crown, fiduciary duty, and the duty to consult arise from this geographical basis, rather than from a legal or abstracted definition of the Crown. More than a bounded space or a specific site, territory is a strategic process of settler-colonial statecraft, in which the law is a constitutive instrument in the unmaking and remaking of territory. The concepts of the Crown, its honour and its duties are not exempt from this 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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.034 | 0.059 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".