Haida Governance Strategies for Effective Ecosystem Based Management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The emerging focus in British Columbia on Indigenous self-determination over negotiated borders requires a detailed focus from governments on the acknowledgement of Indigenous entitlement and the sustainable management of land and marine ecosystems that have stood the test of time. Rich in resources that have provided revenue for the province, these ecosystems have been significantly impacted by exploitative extraction practices that have damaged both the environment and the subsistence and cultural livelihoods of their Indigenous stewards. While B.C. laws have provided some protection to Indigenous Nations and their ancestral domains, these laws have often been created to favour corporations rather than addressing the special protection afforded to Indigenous Nations under international and domestic law. As a result, many Nations are forced to depend on political clout for regaining self-determination. For coastal nations like the Haida, management over ancestral domains is particularly challenging due to the complex matrix of legislation over the land and surrounding oceanscapes. Juxtaposed within the liminal state of a Pacific Ocean borderland that encompasses the administrative borders of Canada, the United States, British Columbia, and Alaska, the ancestral domain of the Haida Nation seems a boundless expanse that is consistently unacknowledged and at risk of infringement by a host of entities. With the aim of addressing this policy gap, the Borders in Globalization Project functions as an international academic network to assist policymakers in making informed decisions on equitable co-management agreements that take these points and others into consideration. This report summarizes the Haida Nation’s evolution in governance since the creation of its governing council, through examination of the strategies by which it has managed the resource base within its borders.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 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 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".