Implementing UNDRIP in British Columbia in a Post-Yahey Context: What to Expect After the Yahey v. BC Litigation (S151727) and the Agreement on Industrial Development and Cumulative Effects Management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Almost two years after the ground-breaking verdict that the Supreme Court of British Columbia issued in the context of the Yahey v. BC litigation, on January 18, 2023, the Province of British Columbia signed a historic agreement with Blueberry River First Nation (BRFN) to address the cumulative effects of industrial development on the meaningful exercise of Treaty 8 rights in the Nation’s traditional territory while establishing collaborative approaches to land and resource planning. At the same time, the Province concluded agreements with other Treaty 8 First Nations (Doig River, Fort Nelson, McLeod Lake, Prophet River, Saulteau and West Moberly First Nations) concerning cumulative effects management, land planning and resource exploitation. These agreements have been praised as ground-breaking steps towards a new relationship that Government and Industry are eager to build with First Nations while healing the land and ensuring certainty for Industry to carry on resource development in British Columbia. This happens as the Province and the Federal Government move forward with their action plans to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (hereafter UNDRIP) at the provincial and federal levels. It also comes at a time of significant challenges British Columbia must face, between new First Nations development projects (i.e., the Cedar LNG project) that the Province is actively supporting and recent litigations initiated by some First Nations to see UNDRIP adequately implemented in the BC legal framework (i.e., the trial initiated by Gitxaala and Ehattesaht First Nations concerning the lack of consultation regarding how BC grants mineral claims).
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".