Natural Resource Exploration and Extraction in Northern Canada: Intersections with Community Cohesion and Social Welfare
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the role that the search for and removal of non-renewable fossil fuels plays in northern, often Aboriginal, communities in Canada. Such settlements at the social, political, and geographic periphery or frontier of Canada are often characterized by transient populations and social welfare challenges. While the economic boom brought about by oil and gas development is undeniable, it is unevenly spread. Further, communities that would otherwise be facing sizable challenges now must address even greater and more urgent struggles. These rural and remote settlements have drawn strength from their social cohesion, but presently, the strain is heightened. Insiders may be at odds with outsiders; one generation may be divided against the generation before and after it. Environmental concerns and traditional culture may be displaced by competing interests. In this paper we provide an overview of the existing and proposed extraction of non-renewable natural resources in several parts of northern Canada and examine their economic impact, but also their social impact. In particular, we focus on their ramifications in terms of community cohesion in general and on Aboriginal communities more specifically. Keywords: Canada, north, Aboriginal, community cohesion, social welfare, economic development
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".