Bibliographic record
Abstract
Richard Daly has had the singular experience of providing the most extensive ethnological opinion evidence heard before any Canadian court with respect to Aboriginal rights and title.His analysis and conclusions are finally being made available to the wider academic and legal communities and are a tribute to the Gitksan and Witsuwit'en elders who entrusted Dr. Daly with their histories.This publication of Dr. Daly's evidence enriches the understanding of the antiquity of Canada's economic, social, and spiritual foundations and of what this country can be if Aboriginal peoples and their rights are recognized as an essential and distinctive part of Canada's history as well as its future.This work is not only for anthropologists, academics, and those with a keen interest in understanding the Gitksan and Witsuwit'en peoples.It is also an essential read for legal practitioners who want to understand the role of expert witnesses and, in particular, those whose evidence is of a type with which the courts are not generally familiar.It is also an essential read for any who want to understand the foundation for Aboriginal rights and title in what is now British Columbia.In 1977, nine years before Richard Daly and Richard Lee arrived in Gitksan and Witsuwit'en territory, Canada's minister of Indian and northern affairs, Hugh Faulkner, accepted the Gitksan and Witsuwit'en claim over their traditional territory as a foundation for negotiating a "comprehensive claim" under the federal treaty-making process.Unfortunately, British Columbia refused to
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.671 | 0.633 |
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".