MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385865549 · doi:10.59962/9780774856102-002

Acknowledgments

2009· book-chapter· en· W4385865549 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of British Columbia Press eBooks · 2009
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Peoples' Rights and Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 1996, the Supreme Court of Canada issued judgments in seven Aboriginal fishing rights cases, five of which originated in British Columbia and two that came from Quebec. 1 Following the court's 1990 landmark decision in R. v. Sparrow, 2 a case involving the fishing rights of the Musqueam that established the framework for the interpretation of Aboriginal rights in the Canadian Constitution, these seven cases confirmed the pivotal place of fishing rights in the general development of Aboriginal rights in Canada.Most of my scholarship, which also began in earnest in 1996, has revolved around the five fishing rights cases from British Columbia.They were too intriguing in their historical interpretation, and too important in their legal developments, for a student interested in law, colonialism, and British Columbia to ignore.These court decisions drew me to the fisheries.Although not much in evidence until the final few pages of my first book, the rulings of the Supreme Court provided much of the impetus for it.To understand both the emerging case law, so clearly indicative of continuing conflict between the state and First Nations over fisheries, and the role of law in that conflict, I undertook an exploration of the historical and legal context from which the litigation emerged.In Fish, Law, and Colonialism, I sought to describe that context in the late nineteenth century and, through several case studies, into the early twentieth.That project, however, left me more than a few decades short of the cases I had set out to understand.In its writing, I also discovered there were other stories to be told or retold, one of which was an account of the connections between Indian reserves and Native fisheries, the subject of two of the Supreme Court decisions from 1996: R. v. Nikal and R. v. Lewis.These cases, and the historical record that they opened for me, led me to believe that Canada's regulation of the fisheries in British Columbia could be more fully understood in the context of the process of Indian reserve allotments.Similarly, the emergence of an Indian reserve geography could

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.597
Threshold uncertainty score0.851

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.4030.211

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.186 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of British Columbia Press eBooksSame topicIndigenous Peoples' Rights and LawFrench-language works237,207