A study of the impact of oil and gas development on the Dene First Nations of the Sahtu (Great Bear Lake) Region of the Canadian Northwest Territories (NWT)
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Beneath Canada's Northwest Territories lies a potential of 30 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Will a $16 billion gas‐pipeline bring prosperity or gloom? Will this bring employment opportunities for local people or will more qualified people be brought in from southern communities? The purpose of this paper is to give an account of what Dene residents of the Sahtu Region have to say about oil and gas development. Design/methodology/approach Starting in 2005, in‐depth interviews with people across the Sahtu Region are conducted. Findings Respondents recognise the short‐term advantages of building a pipeline, but they are concerned about the long‐term impact on the environment that currently ensures their livelihood. Research limitations/implications This study begs for a longitudinal follow‐up. Practical implications Policy‐makers may benefit from knowing the feelings of their constituents. Originality/value This timely study reveals long‐term environmental and social impacts of short‐term development. This is especially important in a region where people believe that they have an obligation to the land upon which they live.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it