Who Pays Attention to Indigenous Peoples in Sustainable Development and Why? Evidence From Socially Responsible Investment Mutual Funds in North America
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
Resource extraction and development have had significant impacts on Indigenous Peoples (IPs), and states have been slow to respond. The need for better engagement practices with IPs has been recognized internationally and in the academic literature. We examine the extent to which IPs and their rights are being recognized by non–state market–driven governance mechanisms meant to promote more sustainable business practices, in this case North American socially responsible investment (SRI) mutual funds. These funds are influential in defining SRI principles, and through shareholder activism they influence broader standards on corporate social responsibility and firm sustainability. Using a survey and a review of secondary internal documentation, we find that while some SRI funds do address IPs, recognition remains low. We find SRI funds that do pay attention have both more capabilities and a different investment orientation than those that do not, which we hypothesize limits broader uptake at this time.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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 it