The Political Struggle Behind the Delgamuukw Case: The 1994-1996 Trilateral Treaty Negotiations with the Gitxsan and Wet’suwet’en
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis examines the political struggle behind the Delgamuukw court case, particularly the 1994-1996 trilateral treaty negotiations with the Gitxsan and Wet’suwet’en. \nThe Gitxsan and Wet’suwet’en’s quests to have their Aboriginal rights and title recognized, and to prevent resource depletion in their hereditary territories, were intricately connected and multi-faceted. The Delgamuukw court case, which is often treated as a distinct issue, should be examined in the context of all significant events, both those which took place in the Gitxsan and Wet’suwet’en territories, as well as those at the negotiating tables. Although Aboriginal peoples’ struggle to preserve their cultural identity dates back to their early contact with the newcomers, colonial governance changed significantly in the 1980s. The neo-liberal governments of Canada and British Columbia moved from the paternalistic policies of the Indian Act to supporting industrial encroachment on a large scale. Neo-liberal governments tend to show benevolence. In fact, their policies may be as harmful as the colonial policies from the first half of the 20th century. In 1990, British Columbia joined the treaty negotiations and commissioned the establishment of the B.C. treaty negotiations process. The Gitxsan and Wet’suwet’en were among those First Nations who undertook negotiations with the provincial government soon after the process had been established. Therefore, their experience provides valuable insight into how this new process started in the 1990s. Since that time, the B.C. treaty process has been extremely unproductive, and the Gitxsan and Wet’suwet’en trilateral treaty negotiations are among the many examples of its failure.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".