Social Partnership’: Promoting Shared Interests for Resource and Infrastructure Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Social partnerships have become a key element for energy and related infrastructure development. Failure to secure social acceptance increases the risks of litigation of a project or political conflict that creates significant barriers to economically viable resource development. The central challenge facing governments, businesses, and affected communities is how to bridge the gap between regulatory requirements ostensibly intended to serve the broader public interest, and competing views of “legitimacy” based on the accommodation of diverse social and political interests and values. This challenge may be greatest in dealing with First Nations, especially the growing but often loosely defined legal recognition of rights to consultation and accommodation of their ways of life and uses of traditional lands. In this Commentary, the authors examine case studies of successful community engagement in different settings involving resource sector firms, local and provincial governments, Aboriginal communities, and other local stakeholders. The authors examine a number of approaches to addressing local concerns. Those are: • Building Multi-Stakeholder Groups and Networks: Local or regional industry working groups including industry representatives provide a valuable means of strengthening connections with local governments and communities, public health authorities and local emergency response professionals in order to reduce risks, address community concerns, and respond more effectively to occasional emergencies. The group process appears to complement the activities of regulators such as the Alberta Energy Regulator. • Multi-Jurisdictional Projects: Multi-jurisdictional initiatives require parallel processes that respect legal, institutional and social differences in various jurisdictions. The authors find successful examples of formal multi-stakeholder advisory processes in British Columbia that could inform future negotiations elsewhere. • Engaging First Nations and Aboriginal Communities: One major factor common to many past disputes with First Nations has been a frustrated community leadership. Consultation prior to detailed project design or approval has become a central factor influencing First Nations’ acceptance of resource projects affecting traditional lands. The energy sector’s involvement in hundreds of diverse communities points to a number of lessons. Provincial and federal governments and regulators can do more by promoting multi-stakeholder groups and disclosing more about emergency response plans. Industry bodies should promote cultures of continuous improvement reinforced by benchmarks and internal reporting requirements that demonstrate adherence. Energy firms themselves can look to international certifications of their processes of social partnership.
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 | 0.014 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.018 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".