MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7019509655

Good Deeds? A Critical Race Analysis of the Nova Scotia <i>Land Titles Clarification Act</i>

2024· article· en· W7019509655 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueeYLS (Yale Law School) · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNova scotiaPromulgationLegislationProsperityNova (rocket)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Nova Scotia Land Titles Clarification Act (“LTCA”) is remedial legislation that was enacted in 1964 to resolve insecure land titles within designated communities, particularly African Nova Scotian communities. However, African Nova Scotians had been advocating for legal title to their land for over 100 years prior to the enactment of the LTCA, and those demands were largely ignored by the government. Furthermore, despite the 60-year existence of this remedial legislation, many African Nova Scotians still hold insecure title to their land. Through a critical race analysis, this article explores why the LTCA has failed to achieve its promise to African Nova Scotians and attributes that failure to the converging interests which gave rise to the enactment of the LTCA but were insufficient to sustain transformative change. The author concludes that unless the motivations for racial equality change, the promise of prosperity for African Nova Scotians will not be achieved. La loi sur la clarification des titres de propriété (Land Titles Clarification Act) de la Nouvelle-Écosse (“LTCA”) est une loi corrective qui a été adoptée en 1964 pour résoudre le problème des titres fonciers non sécurisés au sein des communautés désignées, en particulier les Afro-Néo-Écossais. Cependant, les Néo-Écossais d’origine africaine réclamaient depuis plus de cent ans des titres de propriété pour leurs terres depuis plus de cent ans avant la promulgation de la loi, et ces demandes ont été pour l’essentiel ignorées par le gouvernement. En outre, malgré les soixante ans d’existence de cette législation corrective, de nombreux Néo- Écossais d’origine africaine détiennent toujours des titres fonciers incertains. Par le biais d’une analyse raciale critique, cet article explore les raisons pour lesquelles la LTCA n’a pas tenu ses promesses à l’égard des Néo-Écossais africains. L’auteur conclut qu’à moins que les motivations en faveur de l’égalité raciale ne changent, la promesse de prospérité pour les Afro-Néo-Écossais ne sera pas tenue.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.706
Threshold uncertainty score0.585

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0280.032
Scholarly communication0.0090.007
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.259 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeYLS (Yale Law School)→Same topicCanadian Identity and History→French-language works237,207→