Native Land Use and Common Property: Whose Commons?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
"From the perspective of southern Canada, northern native land use is commonly seen as taking place in a 'wilderness' setting. In a legal framework, much of the harvesting activity is seen to occur on 'unoccupied Crown land'. The resources involved are often seen as common property. The purpose of this paper is to contrast these viewpoints with data obtained from a land use and occupancy study of a Cree community in northern, subarctic Manitoba. Community land use is demonstrated in collective maps trapping travel, of prime areas significant to wildlife harvest, and of preferred commercial fishing sites. Current South Indian Lake land use covers an area of approximately 35,000 km. This land use tends to refute notions of 'wilderness' and the connotation of 'unused' which accompanies the legal term 'unoccupied.' the public's sense of resources is that of common property (res publica), the community's is that of communal resources (res communis). The facts of use and occupancy, and the divergent perceptions of common property resources must be recognized in management structures. Comprehensive comanagement of resource areas and payment of royalties from resource rents to aboriginal governments may provide means of addressing the facts of traditional land use and occupancy. From a community standpoint, these lands are not 'wilderness', but 'home'. The majority of respondents envisioned a viable lifestyle continuing the use of the resources of the land in the future, if in an altered manner. The community furthermore considered the resources as those of the community, and not property common to the general population."
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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 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".