MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2001002173 · doi:10.1080/1523908x.2011.635881

Environmental and Land-Use Planning Approaches of Indigenous Groups in Canada: An Overview

2011· article· en· W2001002173 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Policy & Planning · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsAssembly of First NationsUniversity of Northern British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousLand-use planningEnvironmental planningLand usePolitical scienceEnvironmental resource managementGeographyEconomic growthEcologyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Environmental and/or land-use planning with or for Indigenous peoples is not well studied. This is true for the First Nations in Canada as well. In this article, we review what literature exists with respect to environmental/land-use planning for Indigenous peoples and then review the types of land-use plans that First Nations in Canada have created on their own behalf. We conclude that planners, First Nations and governments need to turn greater attention to this understudied issue and advocate for the development of a field of Indigenous planning, which is planning created by Indigenous peoples to meet their own purposes and needs rather than pursuing planning done to First Nations.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.116
Threshold uncertainty score0.728

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.162
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.174 · 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