Strategic alliances in indigenous entrepreneurship contexts: a case study of the Scuzzy Creek Hydro Project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Indigenous communities throughout Canada and the world value their distinctive and varied heritages. They value both autonomy and cultural integrity. Nevertheless, in order to prosper in a highly competitive and globalised world, most Indigenous communities need to consider the issue of strategic alliances involving both other Indigenous communities and non-Indigenous people and organizations from the mainstream of the nation state. Combined with this desire for prosperity, Indigenous people and organizations have formed strategic alliances with non-Indigenous people and organizations in the attempt to advance the economic development of their communities. Indigenous communities also utilize strategic alliances to take back control of their territory and the resources within its territory. Therefore, these communities need to consider the twin issues of when and how to create appropriate strategic alliances in order to discover, evaluate and exploit entrepreneurial opportunities. This paper has one dominant aim: to critically examine the Scuzzy Creek Hydro Project (a strategic alliance between the Nlaka'pamux Nation and non-Indigenous partners) in light of both the mainstream strategic alliance literature and a range of Indigenous perspectives.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".