A planning framework for collaboration and meaningful participation of aboriginal peoples in environmental decision making practices and conflict resolution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research evaluates, develops and builds upon approaches for the inclusion of Aboriginal perspectives within environmental decision making practices and grievance resolution processes. The objective is to identify appropriate methods and protocols for effective collaboration drawing from the experience, interpretations and perspectives of both cultural groups. Through a case study analysis of Ontario Hydro's restructuring of Aboriginal/corporate relations during the early 1990s, this research identifies the pre-conditions which made collaboration possible and the adaptive management strategies that created the space for constructive and meaningful dialogue. As an interdisciplinary study, this research combines both indigenous and western knowledge systems. It draws from the perspectives of collaboration, co-operative planning, cross-cultural communication and indigenous concepts regarding organizational response to problem solving to identify appropriate processes, structures and communication styles. A planning framework is presented which consists of four distinct yet inter-connected component parts conceptualized as: (1) Acceptance of Aboriginal and Treaty Rights, (2) A Comprehensive Program, (3) Meaningful Participation and (4) Mutual Benefit (Peterson, 1992). This framework evolved from the political context of the Ontario Government's Statement of Political Relations (1991) which recognized First Nations as governments and is evaluated for its relevance in the post Delgamuukw legal climate regarding the duty to consult and the requirement for meaningful consultation. The case study incorporates content analysis of primary and secondary documents, interviews with key participants, and reflections on the events that unfolded at Hydro in response to (1) the Statement of Political Relations, (2) Aboriginal demands for past grievance resolution with Ontario Hydro, and (3) the development of appropriate consultation mechanisms for Aboriginal involvement in their Environmental Assessment processes. The knowledge enhancement of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal participants is examined for their effectiveness to create greater communication, mutual understanding and the translation into actions agreeable to both parties. This research contributes to understanding the nature of effective collaborative processes within the Aboriginal/Canadian context by identifying attributes and protocols that make it effective and sustainable. Building knowledge about cross-cultural communication and co-operative decision making will facilitate positive wide-reaching change to improve the effectiveness of program and policy decisions.
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 | 0.017 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".