Good relations: an alternative paradigm for natural resource governance in Eeyou Istchee
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The parties to two modern agreements in Eeyou Istchee â the Crees of Eeyou Istchee and the Governments of Canada and Quebec â describe their treaty relationship in terms of a "new relationship" based on principles such as mutual recognition and reciprocity.Current perspectives on a new relationship in Eeyou Istchee are inadequate to understand the parties' complex normative interactions and political claims for recognition. An alternative paradigm is needed to conceptualize a new relationship, which emphasizes the political and legal processes that allow Aboriginal peoples and state actors to engage in reciprocal dialogue, and negotiate compromises to deep-seated normative disagreements. Formal and informal mechanisms for decentralized governance of natural resources â including community consultation processes, and institutions for co-management and community-based management â can provide forums for the parties to negotiate their political and normative interactions within an alternative paradigm.
Stored with the screening record, where it is evidence for the labels above.
How this classification was reachedexpand
The three-model screen
all 5,600 screened works →All three models called this out of scope.
Thesis proposing an alternative paradigm for natural resource governance in Eeyou Istchee; the object is treaty relations and resource co-management.
The dissertation studies natural-resource governance in Eeyou Istchee, not the Canadian research system.
Indigenous natural-resource governance in Eeyou Istchee; object is resource governance, not research.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".