MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1037960921

The Duty to Consult First Nations within the Environmental Assessment Process: A Resource Industry Perspective

2013· dissertation· en· W1037960921 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Megan Chadwick

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental and Social Impact Assessments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDutyNegotiationPublic consultationPolitical sciencePublic administrationResource (disambiguation)Public relationsStakeholderBusinessLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The legal doctrine, ‘Duty to Consult’, was set through a number of landmark court cases between 1997 and 2004. It is this duty that has helped First Nations receive official stakeholder status in the negotiation of land and resource use issues in British Columbia (BC), Canada. Later, policy initiatives, a best practices handbook, and procedure development shaped through the actual practice of consultation, contributed to the formation of an ‘in practice’ reality of this duty. When making an application to undertake a resource extraction or utilization project, industry proponents must go through BC’s Environmental Assessment (EA) process. This process is one example of where the ‘Duty to Consult’ has been applied in the form of a required consultation with First Nations affected by a proposed project. Despite the formation of law and policy meant to guide this area of practice and produce successful consultation activities, it is left unclear from law and policy alone what actual strategies are used by industry proponents to meet the requirements of consultation during an EA. However, as successful consultation is the goal, understanding the strategies alone is insufficient for creating a clear picture of the important considerations of this process. For this reason, the research sought to understand what overarching approach, aside from legal parameters and policy frameworks, guide the practice of consultation with First Nations in private sector resource industry projects. Identifying and examining the difficulties of consultation from the perspective of industry helped explain what the overall approach must be when undertaking this type of consultation and why this approach is of such importance. In the last few years EA has gained greater attention in BC. Due to this, reviewing the legal context and documents that officially shape the practice of consultation within the EA process is timely, relevant and provides a basis for further research. The research involved interviews with industry proponents and staff at the Environmental Assessment Office (EAO). These served to develop an understanding of the individual experience of those working in the field. In developing a fuller picture of the subtleties of the consultation process, the interviews are supplemented with an analysis of the social and political context that influences consultation. The analysis revealed that more effective consultations prioritize relationship-building as their primary approach and are responsive to the varying local conditions, as each community engaged with is unique. The findings present challenges perceived on the industry side that may help provide better understanding of the influences on the EA process and approach used by industry proponents. Although there are subtle differences between the issues identified by both the EAO and the industry proponents interviewed, overall the similarities were significant. All of those interviewed identified relationship-building between all stakeholders as a key approach to the process and to the long-term success of the projects being proposed. Given the historical context of the relationship between all stakeholders, the conclusion of the research is that, although building trusting relationships will be difficult given the history of relations, it is also the starting point for building greater understanding and repairing trust within this particular sector.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.057
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.897
Threshold uncertainty score0.302

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0570.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0330.048
Scholarly communication0.0290.016
Open science0.0040.010
Research integrity0.0150.016
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.287 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEnvironmental and Social Impact AssessmentsFrench-language works237,207