Navigating jurisdiction: local and regional strategies to access economic benefits from mineral development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article examines how concepts of territory and scale are used to create places of benefit from resource activities in remote rural regions. Our case study of mineral development in northwest British Columbia compares the experiences of First Nation, municipal and regional governments in accessing economic benefits from mineral development. Territorial land claims are changing the multi‐scalar jurisdictional hierarchy and the socio‐spatial relations between senior levels of government, resource companies, and local communities. The territorial rights of First Nation governments provide the political leverage to negotiate with companies seeking to “earn a social license” to operate within their territories. Municipal and regional governments, however, are restricted by their role in the multi‐scalar jurisdictional hierarchy. In response, municipal and regional governments are devising strategies to capture economic benefits. We discuss three economic development strategies used to access benefits from mineral development activities: negotiating commitments during the environmental assessment process, investment attraction strategies, and lobbying the provincial government for a share of the resource revenues generated from mining. These strategies reflect the political and economic context for local government in remote resource‐dependent regions and the changing socio‐spatial relations between senior levels of government, resource companies, and First Nation, municipal and regional governments.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".