Illuminating Community Experience and Perception of Modern Treaty Implementation Through Photovoice: Photography and Stories From Huu-ay-aht First Nations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada is currently operationalizing reconciliation efforts that stress the establishment of respectful and just relationships between Indigenous peoples and provincial and federal governments. British Columbia (BC) is unique among Canadian provinces and territories, given its lack of historical treaty agreements with Canadian governments. In April 2011, Huu-ay-aht First Nations joined four other Nuu-chah-nulth First Nations to begin implementation of the Maa-nulth Final Agreement (also known as the Maa-nulth Treaty) with BC and Canada, one of only three modern treaties that had been negotiated in the province at that time. Through narrative analysis of a case study using photovoice and participant observation involving 33 participants, I explore the experiences and perceptions of Huu-ay-aht citizens regarding the early years of treaty implementation. Modern treaties are often theoretically criticized for being extensions of assimilative and colonial processes. However, empirical findings from this community-engaged study exemplify positive change, or the potential for change, and enhanced community autonomy, as seen and experienced through increases in control over Treaty Lands. Participants’ data show that this control is effectively counteracting some of the impacts of dependency and suffering created by decades of destructive and racist Canadian federal and provincial government policies, structures, and services. Structural, environmental and health concerns that remain as treaty implementation continues are also discussed. This case study contributes to a better understanding of the experiences and perceptions of Indigenous peoples implicated in modern treaty relationships, experiences and perceptions that (as yet) are not adequately represented in the literature.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".