British Columbia's Indigenous Territories by Stage of Treaty Negotiation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The results of a visual analysis drew three main conclusions: 1-Although it may have been beneficial to be proximal to urban centers when finalizing treaties, this proximity is not, in and of itself, a reason why various Indigenous groups are at one stage or another in the negotiation process.2-The traditional territories of Indigenous groups not currently negotiating are all geographically close to at least one other territory with the same classification.Conclusions as to the relevance of this are beyond the scope of this project.3-The area of overlap between traditional territories is 32.1% of the total land mass of the province and 19.5% of the total traditional territory in British Columbia. Methods:Spatial data of BC's First Nations participating in the treaty process was ordered from DataBC.Using ArcGIS, the spatial data was separated into permanent layers representing Nations at each stage of negotiation.Map products were created to represent each stage of negotiation.Areas of overlap were then identified using the "dissolve" and "intersect" tools.A map was created to visually represent these areas of overlap and a statistical analysis of the amount of land covered by overlap was completed.A web map was also created to serve as a visual tool to view areas of overlap between traditional territories.The map products created were compared to a heat map of population density in British Columbia in order to extrapolate trends. LimitationsScope: The treaty system in British Columbia is very complicated and its intricacies are beyond the scope of this project.Lack of data: Further analysis would have been possible had temporal data been available for when Indigenous groups were classified as "not currently negotiating" by the BC Treaty Commission.Representation: There are many Indigenous groups that are not officially recognized by the provincial government and are not represented in this project. ASSUMPTION:The primary assumption being made in this project is that data provided by the provincial government is concurrent with Indigenous groups' claimed traditional territories.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".