Governmentality and Mining: Analyzing the Environmental Impact Assessment for the Mary River Mine, Nunavut, Canada
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The purpose of this research is to examine the thoroughness, objectivity, and inclusivity of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the Mary River Iron Mine as a means to evaluate broader tensions expressed by the people of Nunavut that impact assessments are not addressing the concerns of northern communities.The EIA process in Nunavut is often conceptualized as a rigorous and unbiased tool that provides decision-makers with the information necessary to determine the likely impacts of a natural resources development project.This research reveals that the Mary River Project's potential to negatively impact caribou and Inuit harvesting of caribou was not thoroughly assessed, nor was it meaningfully informed by those concerned about the mine (e.g.Inuit organizations and residents of potentially impacted communities).As currently practiced, EIA privileges the perspectives of the mining industry and reinforces narratives that mining is the key to Nunavut's socio-economic development.Settlement Area 1 in order to assess their likely socio-economic and environmental impacts (NIRB, 2014).The NIRB's role is to facilitate open dialogue between the various actors involved or impacted by a project proposal, and to assess the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) submitted by the project proponent.The review process involves a number of stages such as issues scoping, preparation and review of the EIS, and community consultations (NIRB, 2014B).In theory this process allows actors to express their concerns and opinions, and facilitates the collection and sharing of scientific data, as well as Inuit knowledge, known as Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ) 2 , as evidence to predict the likely socio-economic and environmental impacts of the project being assessed.Upon completion of a review, the NIRB reports its recommendations on whether or not a project should be approved, and under what conditions, to the Federal Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC) who has the ultimate say regarding approval (NIRB, 2009A).Despite having a systematic procedure for conducting Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA), the NIRB's role is made more difficult due to the complex and often contested nature of mining and development plans in Nunavut.When plans for large-scale development projects are proposed, a number of conflicting perspectives often emerge.Narratives about sustainable development, Inuit self-determination, 1 The Nunavut Settlement Area is the geographical area that would become the Territory of Nunavut as defined in the NLCA.For a more detailed description of the geographical extent of the area, as well as its legal significance, see Article 3 in the NLCA (1993). 2 Also referred to as Traditional Knowledge, Traditional Ecological Knowledge, Aboriginal Knowledge, and Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit within Nunavut.I will use the term Indigenous Knowledge (IK) when speaking in a broad sense, and Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ) when referring to Inuit knowledge specifically.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,006 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,006 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».