MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7035920336

Aboriginal Title and Oceans Policy in Canada

2006· article· en· W7035920336 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueeYLS (Yale Law School) · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDiverse Scientific Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTreatyCoastal managementConstitutionGovernment (linguistics)National Environmental Policy ActTreaty of WaitangiAntarctic treatyMarine conservation
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Oceans Act of Canada sets out a broad framework for the unified management of Canada’s oceans based on an ecosystem approach. In particular, the Oceans Act calls on the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to lead and facilitate the development of a national strategy to guide the management of Canada’s estuarine, coastal and marine ecosystems. The Oceans Act also reflects awareness that aboriginal rights may affect the development or implementation of policy surrounding oceans management. For example, s. 2(1) of the Act states that “. . . nothing in this Act shall be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.” The Oceans Act also provides for collaboration with aboriginal organizations in the development and implementation of a national strategy and plans for integrated management of all activities affecting estuarine, coastal and marine waters, and provides for the possibility of aboriginal participation on certain advisory or management bodies, thus creating an opportunity for aboriginal input into Canada’s ocean policy in the future.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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 score0.134
Threshold uncertainty score0.970

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0370.009
Scholarly communication0.0100.002
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0070.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.340 · 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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeYLS (Yale Law School)Same topicDiverse Scientific Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207