Of moose and man : collaborating to identify First Nations’ priorities for cumulative impact assessment in northeast British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In northeast British Columbia, industrial development is proceeding at a rapid rate. While it is playing and integral role in the provincial economy, there is increasing concern that the cumulative impacts of this development may be causing environmental damage and potentially infringing on the unique rights of First Nations in the region. This project involved collaboration with the Treaty 8 Tribal Association and member First Nations to identify the concerns that should be addressed in a cumulative impact assessment. To minimize the pitfalls associated with imposing a research agenda and methods at the community-level, we took a community-based collaborative approach. Multiple interviews and archival research identified multiple concerns that extend well beyond the natural environment. For the purpose of guiding cumulative impact assessment, these concerns were broken down into six themes: land-based activities; human health; identity, culture and sense of place; access to financial benefits; power, rights and jurisdiction; and intrinsic value of nature. The inclusion of non-ecological values and the identification of concerns not assessed under regional resource management approaches emphasize the need to establish a means to include First Nations in the assessment of cumulative impacts. The diversity amongst the concerns identified by the communities and their capacity to participate in such a study highlights the need for an open and flexible approach to collaboration. Finally, the difficulties encountered during this project illustrate the need for both researchers and communities to proceed with care and caution when entering into collaborative research partnerships.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".