Introducing land markets in First Nations: transgressive tendencies, post-colonial possibilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis examines attempts to transform access to land and housing in First Nations (‘Indian Reservations’) in Canada through the mechanism of market development. This initiative, proposed by the Government of Canada to First Nations, is a deliberate shift away from socially funded housing to owner occupied housing as a way to increase wealth and address social conditions. The thesis begins with a brief statement of how recent policy shifts in First Nation housing have been justified by neoliberalism, and outlines policy and planning interventions consistent with neoliberalism to develop First Nation homeownership programs. Next, the thesis examines market development in Indigenous lands internationally and draws on lessons learned that may take shape in First Nations. Finally, the thesis examines how interventions in First Nations have been discussed in recent policy documents leading up to the Kelowna Accord signed in 2005, and reports on critical discourse analysis of the documents that were authored by the signatories to support negotiations on the Accord. The purpose is not so much to evaluate the interventionist policies as it to highlight what they attempt to achieve, and to identify some of the challenges they present to planners. Specifically, the thesis addresses the question: what underlying meanings have been embedded in the documentation supporting negotiations on the land questions between Ottawa and Aboriginal organisations? To this end, it extends the analysis by Skelton and Ribeiro (2006), which raises concerns in relation to social rights, Aboriginal governance and social relations that may accompany the introduction of land markets. Findings show how powerful policy discourses shaped by ideological beliefs privilege particular market forms. However, the emphasis on developing market mechanisms fails to address fundamental issues, such as the underlying cause of poverty and homelessness in First Nations. Such insights challenge current direction in First Nations housing policy and calls for socially responsive and community-based solutions to housing that are relevant to culture, context and place.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.052 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".