Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to understand the issues related to the deployment of renewable electricity technologies (RETs) in remote indigenous communities by examining the views of key informants in a remote northern Ontario community through the lens of a wicked problem approach, with the goal to identify policy direction and strategies for the further development of renewable electricity projects. Design/methodology/approach The paper uses semi-structured interviews with community key informants, informed discussions with community members and energy conference participants and literature reviews of academic, policy and utility documents as complementary data sources for triangulation of results. Findings According to informants, the complexity surrounding the deployment of RETs in remote Canadian indigenous communities is the result of different stakeholder perspectives on the issues that RETs are expected to address. Furthermore, institutional complexity of the electricity generation system and uncertainty over both the choice of off-grid renewable technology and the future of electricity generation systems structure and governance add to this complexity. Research limitations/implications Given the governments’ legal obligation to consult with indigenous people for projects within their territories, community perspectives provide insights for policy design to support both the deployment of RETs and address indigenous communities sustainability goals. Originality/value This paper offers views and opinions of community members from an off-grid Canadian indigenous community. Community members describe how they envision their electricity systems and the desired contribution of community owned renewable electricity generation to increase local control and economic development.
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 | 0.024 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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".