Recognition, self-determination and treaty federalism: understanding indigenous-state relationships in co-management regimes in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Au fil des années, la relation entre les peuples Autochtones et l’État canadien a évolué. En parallèle, de différentes perspectives juridiques, souvent contradictoires, sont apparues. Cette thèse considère comment ces perspectives peuvent être regroupées dans des structures identifiables, qui agissent comme un schéma pour la relation. Trois structures sont analysées dans ce texte : la reconnaissance, l’autodétermination, et le fédéralisme par traité. Quand un modèle est appliqué, les buts, hypothèses et limitations associés forment la fondation juridique de la structure. Pour démontrer comment ces structures peuvent être utilisées en tant que modèle pour informer la relation Autochtone-État, trois régimes de cogestion sont étudiés : le conseil de gestion des ressources faunique de Nunavut, la commission du bassin hydrographique de Cowichan, et l’accord de cogestion sur Haida Gwaii. Il est avancé que, pour améliorer la communication, il faut se rendre compte de ces structures pour permettre des conversations et négociations efficaces entre l’État et les peuples Autochtone. Ceci améliorera la relation juridique Autochtone-État et mènera à des pratiques environnementales bénéfiques
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".