Land Management on First Nations Reserves: Lawful Possession and Its Determinants
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Much debate concerning property rights on reserves in Canada focuses on socio-economic impacts and the potential for individualized land tenure to support economic development, thereby reducing poverty. Study of existing forms of individual property on reserves is needed to inform these debates. In this article, we examine data on the lawful possession (Certificate of Possession) system that is currently used on reserves across Canada. We provide descriptive statistics regarding the variability of lawful possessions across First Nations and using regression analysis we assess which socio-economic, demographic, and locational variables influence the use of lawful possessions instead of communal land or other customary land holding systems. We show that use of the lawful possession system is surprisingly low and very uneven. As well, our regression results suggests that using the system requires a relatively educated community with low levels of poverty, with a favourable geographic location. Overall, the results are consistent with the view that lawful possessions are not primarily used to foster economic development.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.001 |
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 it