Land and sovereignty: relationships with land, Indigenous sovereignty, and hydropower production in northern Manitoba
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Relationships between Indigenous peoples, government, and corporations have long been points of contention and challenge. In northern Manitoba, the construction and operation of hydroelectric generating stations and control structures have long caused destruction to land and water and social and cultural challenges for Indigenous communities impacted by these projects. This dissertation looks at the relationships between Manitoba Hydro, a Crown hydroelectric corporation in Manitoba, and Inniniwak (Cree) communities in northern Manitoba historically and currently in order to review the implications of natural resource extraction on Indigenous sovereignty. Through a review of historical relationships, contemporary partnership agreements, apologies made by the government of Manitoba, and the continued importance of relationships with the land for Inniniwak people in northern Manitoba, I argue that relationships with land are a fundamental basis of Indigenous (Inniniwak) sovereignty and that the ways in which hydropower production in Manitoba is implemented creates challenges for Indigenous sovereignty. Despite these challenges, I review some ways in which Inniniwak people are continuing their relationships with the land, and thus acting out their sovereignty and (re)creating and maintaining it, despite destruction caused by hydropower production. Additionally, I review the ways in which Inniniwak communities are continuing to assert their sovereignty through direct action against destructive decisions made by the provincial government and Manitoba Hydro.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".