Waiting for the snow to fall: First Nations, federal policy and environmental justice
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Critical evaluation of the proposed expansion of the Arizona Snowbowl ski area will provide knowledge towards developing sustainable land-use policy.The San Francisco Peaks region in Arizona has endured numerous conflicts since the United States Forest Service (USFS) allowed the ski area's construction in 1938.The cultural importance of this region is evident in that over thirteen Native American tribes hold this area as sacred and central to their traditional way of life.Through this conflict, partnerships fostered between the tribes and several environmental groups have illuminated the significance of the cultural and natural resources involved.However, lost in the consciousness of many Americans today is the fact that Indigenous peoples have been fighting to save their sacred sites since Europeans made first contact.The ski industry developed without oversight for decades even with negative impacts to both environment and community.The ski industry has failed to address these impacts due to the strength of corporate power that drives the industry.For example, loopholes found in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) will allow the Arizona Snowbowl to spray wastewater over an uncontaminated mountainside for making artificial snow, which simultaneously damages the spiritual significance of the mountain for Native Americans.I will use a methodological approach centered on qualitative interviews to examine historical actions that have paved the way for the present conflict involving the Arizona Snowbowl.Literature reviewed will examine Native American culture and is a gift to my father's spirit, who left this life before he was able to read the final draft.I would like to thank Humboldt State University, the Environment and Community M.A. program, professors, and my cohort members for unlimited support and dialogue over the past few years.I would also like to give thanks to Marlon Sherman and Mark Baker for their support as my committee members.Special thanks to my chair, Maria Bartlett, for her care and support during this process.I would also like to thank Deb Waxman for her time and consideration in working with me.As well, a sincere thanks to Kelvin, Evon, and the Save the Peaks folks for inspiring people to engage in this research and continuing to fight for what they believe in.I would like to thank all interviewees fortheir time and perspective shared.In addition, a sincere thanks to Jeanne Souldern, who finally helped this paper find its completion.I would like to acknowledge my thanks and respect for the Earth, for all of its life forms and processes, especially the snow and mountains.Finally, to Jillian, Olas, and Nieve for their unlimited patience and the loving support to make this into something tangible and accessible beyond academia.
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 | 0,004 | 0,009 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,021 | 0,010 |
| Communication savante | 0,013 | 0,010 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,011 | 0,011 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,019 | 0,001 |
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 ».