A Historical Institutionalist Understanding of Participatory Governance and Aboriginal Peoples: The Case of Policy Change in Ontario's Mining Sector*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective Natural resource policy has been a constant source of conflict between “Aboriginal” and “non‐Aboriginal” stakeholders in Canada. We employ a historical institutionalist analysis to examine the extent to which changes to the Canadian Constitution in 1982 and Ontario's Mining Act in 2009 enabled Aboriginal communities to become equal partners in participatory governance arrangements in mineral resource sectors. Methods We analyze primary sources consisting of federal and provincial legislation and in‐person interviews conducted across Ontario in 2010. Results The existing Canadian mining policy paradigm, while under significant pressure, has not yet been displaced by a new policy paradigm that would better accommodate the interests of Aboriginal stakeholders. Consequently, Aboriginal peoples’ mineral resource claims are likely to remain unresolved. Conclusion We suggest how a policy paradigm that both improves Aboriginal‐state relations and reduces uncertainty in the mining sector offers a promising political foundation for participatory governance and cooperative engagement between stakeholders.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.056 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".