Preface and Acknowledgments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Is it possible for culturally divergent peoples, Aboriginal and western European, to have a mutually recognized, respectful relationship?This became a central question in my attempt to understand the struggle between the Chippewas of Nawash-Saugeen, who occupy the shores of the Bruce Peninsula on Georgian Bay, and the province of Ontario over Aboriginal fishing and treaty rights.Following the province's defeat in the courts -owing, in part, to the court's recognition of treaty rights and an imperial proclamation of 1847 by Queen Victoria -it continued to assert jurisdictional control over the management of recreational fisheries.1 Management practices such as stocking Pacific salmon conflicted with the community's commitment to protect indigenous (and commercial) species, especially lake trout and white fish.The Nawash view this commitment as part and parcel of treaty and Aboriginal rights.I am grateful to the Chippewas of Nawash for explaining and allowing me to witness their conflicts with the Crown, at both the provincial and federal levels, and for allowing me to participate in discussions of these rights.The experience not only widened my appreciation of issues concerning justice and crosscultural understanding, it also deepened my understanding of the value of examining these issues from a philosophical or ethical perspective.Will Kymlicka's conceptualization of multiculturalism and liberal democratic principles formed the initial framework for this study, but interactions with friends and colleagues eventually led me to seek an alternative framework.2 "We are not just one cultural group among others!"I was told."Aboriginal rights are not just about being protected against arbitrary discrimination.They are rights by virtue of our being here first."Even more radically, they argued, "There is no word in our language for right; we have responsibilities toward the land and one another."Despite Kymlicka's efforts to address at least some of these concerns (e.g., to maintain a distinction between Aboriginal and other minority rights), I found myself looking to Aboriginal peoples' historical treaty relationship with the Crown for clues
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 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.262 | 0.132 |
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".