A New Relationship? An Analysis of Jurisdiction Through Non-treaty Agreements in British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resource development projects have major implications on rural and Indigenous livelihoods. In an effort to actively influence the outcome of resource development on their territories, Indigenous communities are increasingly asserting their rights while engaging in negotiated agreements and management regimes with state and industry proponents. With a New Relationship Vision, the British Columbian government is engaging in Nation to Nation negotiations with First Nations governments regarding land and resource rights in their traditional territories. These agreements include reconciliation agreements, economic and community development agreements, resource sharing agreements and co-management agreements. Through a qualitative document analysis of current reconciliation agreements, protocols and framework agreements, this project seeks to improve capacity for First Nation’s governments interested in shared decision-making agreements. The outcome of this analysis addresses these agreements’ ability for achieving the following objectives: 1) To cooperatively manage the natural and cultural resources within a Nation’s traditional territory with the Province in an environmentally and culturally appropriate manner; 2) to benefit from the resources within their traditional territory; and 3) to obtain legal rights to their territory’s culturally significant areas for social and/or economic benefit. This study will better inform First Nation’s governments on the content, purpose and possibilities offered through these governance tools for achieving desired land use and cultural imperatives.
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 | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".