MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2298297624 · doi:10.11575/prism/34282

Crown Consultation with Aboriginal Peoples in Oil Sands Development: Is it Adequate, Is it Legal?

2007· article· en· W2298297624 on OpenAlex
Monique Passelac-Ross, Verónica Potes

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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenuePRISM (University of Calgary) · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMining and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersGovernment of CanadaUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsOil sandsCrown (dentistry)Political scienceBusinessGeographyEnvironmental planningArchaeologyMedicineDentistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The environmental and social impacts of oil sands development are generally well documented. As the development intensifies, concerns over these impacts have multiplied. Because oil sands operations in the Athabasca region are located on lands traditionally and currently used by First Nation and Métis peoples, these impacts particularly affect the local Aboriginal communities. Aboriginal peoples have raised concerns about environmental and socio-economic impacts since the early days of oil sands development in the 1960s. Unfortunately, these effects are not well understood and are only beginning to be documented. The question this paper seeks to address is the following: how is Alberta fulfilling its constitutional obligations to consult and accommodate Aboriginal peoples in the oil sands development process?

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.855
Threshold uncertainty score0.498

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.191 · 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