Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 2015 election of the New Democratic Party (NDP) in Alberta and the NDP government’s commitment to implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples has opened up new possibilities for reforming the province’s relationship with First Nations and Métis communities. Alberta’s tar sands regulatory process and consultation policy with Indigenous peoples, however, has so far remained the same, and the provincial government continues to support expanding the industry. This article argues that the 2014 Consultation Guidelines imposed by the previous Progressive Conservative government severely limit the participation rights of Indigenous peoples and violate treaty rights by not adequately addressing cumulative impacts. Despite sustained critique by legal scholars and Indigenous communities, previous reforms to the consultation system have not substantively addressed their concerns. In response, several First Nations in Alberta have launched legal actions challenging both the consultation regime and specific project approvals. Following a discussion of consultation and consent in Canada, the article uses recent legal cases to illustrate how Indigenous peoples in Alberta have been excluded from key decision-making around the oil industry. Finally, it considers how the regulatory process must change to respect Indigenous rights and self-determination.
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 | 0.018 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.041 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".