First Nations and Renewable Energy Development in British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although First Nations in British Columbia are active participants in the renewable energy sector, very little research has been conducted to assess the scope and implications of their involvement. Seeking to address this knowledge gap, the BC First Nations Clean Energy Working Group partnered with researchers at the University of Victoria’s School of Environmental Studies to conduct a province-wide survey. The survey asked respondents whether they were involved or interested in being involved in the industry, whether they had projects in operation or development, and whether they wished to be further involved. It also asked respondents to identify barriers to involvement and capacity building activities to date. The research team contacted 203 First Nations across the province from October 2016 to February 2017. In total, we received responses from 102 First Nations and 3 Tribal Councils. Our findings suggest that there is widespread involvement and interest in renewable energy among First Nations in BC, with 98% of respondents indicating they are already involved and/or wish to be more involved in the sector. The results identify a wide variety of projects, differing in size, technology, and application. Ownership, involvement and benefits also vary considerably depending on whether First Nations are the project proponents or joining projects proposed by others. Despite this multifaceted involvement and interest, 68% of respondents indicated they are experiencing substantial barriers to entry and expansion in renewable energy development. The three most common barriers included lack of opportunity in BC Hydro programs, financing, and community readiness.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".