Stealing the seabed. The Canadian State and the question of Rights and Title over submerged lands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recognising the seabed as a space of contested Rights and Title requires the Canadian State to fundamentally change its approach to the territories of Indigenous peoples. In 2023, the Canadian State declared an effective moratorium on deep-sea mining within its jurisdiction. While the importance of establishing environmental regulations has been recognised, discussion of access and Indigenous Rights and Title relating to the seafloor is lacking. This is despite challenges to State claims of sovereignty over, and activities pertaining to the seabed being increasingly invoked in the Canadian courts. Indigenous Rights over the seabed complicate State expressions of sovereignty over stolen and unceded marine scapes. However, the State’s definitions of “land” over which Rights are conferred—and the placement of the burden of proof onto Indigenous peoples—only serves to replicate colonial and racial logics of Indigenous peoples as static, both geographically and temporally. In contrast the State affords itself the potential to be flexible, including in how it mobilises the ocean's geo-physical characterstics, as new and emerging industries shape discussions of the seabed as a site of extraction. Instead of extending policies and practices that have been extensively critiqued in relation to terrestrial land, the current moratorium offers an opportunity to reconsider how the State operates with regards to the marine space. Engagement with these questions is necessary, lest the dispossession and theft that occur on land and offshore are continued and repeated.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".