‘A bureaucracy within a bureaucracy’: The Department of Fisheries and Oceans and relationships under the Maa-nulth Treaty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the acknowledgement of the importance of relations with the ocean for nuučaan̓uł ways of being, relationships between Canada's Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) and nuučaan̓uł Nations remain rife with power inequities. The existence, form, and right for nuučaan̓uł to practice fishing, including commercial fishing, is one such flashpoint where relationships with DFO and thus Canada's policy and general orientation to First Nations are strained. Even for huuʕiiʔatḥ, one of the five First Nations signatories to the Maa-nulth Treaty, coming to the table as equal treaty partners has been difficult due to DFO's orientation to nuučaan̓uł fishing rights, the hierarchy of scientific knowledges, and lack of recognitions of legal authorities through hawiłpatak hawiih. Based on our 10 years of research into the implementation of the Maa-nulth Treaty, in this paper we explore the relationship between Huu-ay-aht First Nations and DFO. To do so, we begin by overviewing the process of reserve creation across nuučaan̓uł ḥaḥuułi and how colonial understandings and creations of 'fisheries' played a key role in dispossession. We then turn to our interviews with Maa-nulth First Nations negotiation and implementation teams to explore how reconciliation and fishing rights have emerged through the Maa-nulth Treaty, and how nuučaan̓uł knowledges have been disregarded by the DFO. We conclude by profiling the tensions, strengths, and challenges huuʕiiʔatḥ have experienced in exercising their treaty rights, inclusive of hawiłpatak hawiih, through the Maa-nulth Treaty and specifically with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".