Conceptualizing Mi’kmaw Aboriginal and Treaty-Based Fisheries: Legal Constructs or Value-Based Way of Life?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Indigenous peoples’ resurgence to use their own ways, laws, and political and intellectual traditions is becoming synonymous with fisheries governance in Canada. On the east coast, a Mi’kmaw perspective was garnered to enhance understanding of the Mi’kmaq image of their fisheries based on Aboriginal and treaty rights to fish to inform governance design. Using semi-structured interviews exploring governance challenges and opportunities with Mi’kmaw participants and desktop research, an image of the Mi’kmaw fisheries was derived. Based on content analysis of the transcripts, historical, legal, and current perspectives of Aboriginal and treaty rights-based fisheries, Mi’kmaq fisheries is described as one that supports the individual’s and collective’s physical, spiritual, cultural, and economic needs yet is self-governed, ethical, shared, responsible, conservative, respectful, and intermittent. This image of the Mi’kmaw fisheries was found to conflict with the current fisheries image held by the federal government and thus requires a shift of federal understanding of the role of the legal and historic interdependency as one fishery. Such understandings would require changes to federal policy to reflect an integrated understanding and image of the Mi’kmaw Aboriginal and treaty rights-based fisheries.
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 | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".