A Question of Inclusion: BC Hydro’s Site C Dam Indigenous Consultation Process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Site C Dam, a third large hydroelectric project on the Peace River, Canada, could potentially impact many Indigenous groups’ traditional ways of life and cultural lands. Through an explanatory case study, we evaluated the quality of the consultation process between three Indigenous groups and BC Hydro. We reviewed all relevant project documents ([Formula: see text]) from the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency Public Registry site to identify concerns of three affected Indigenous groups, then evaluated the Indigenous consultation process against best management practices (BMPs) of the International Association for Impact Assessment and the World Bank. Overall, BC Hydro did not apply the international BMPs effectively, due in part to the legislated process and the proponent’s own consultation approach, which limited the ability of the proponent to obtain free, prior, informed consent or identify resource rights. Our findings provide new insights into constraints affecting social impact assessments within and outside of Canada.
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 | 0.087 | 0.272 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.035 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".