Understanding consultation and engagement of Indigenous Peoples in resource development: A policy framing approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Canada’s legal system has repeatedly ruled that the Crown has a duty to consult with Indigenous Peoples when approving and shaping resource development projects that are located on their land or could infringe on their rights. Yet, there are still incidences where Indigenous communities and organizations find formal consultation processes, and the approach to engagement taken by industry and government, to be lacking. We use insights from the policy studies literature to argue that generating more evidence and analysis about the benefits and impacts of development is unlikely to improve consultation and engagement processes or resolve resource development disputes. We suggest that a policy framing approach, which examines how the different actors frame or define controversial and intractable policy problems, can provide insight into why disputes occur. We examine publicly available documents and statements about consultation and engagement produced by Indigenous groups, Canadian governments, and industry to identify and compare how these groups are likely to frame resource development and consultation activities.
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 | 0.029 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.031 | 0.052 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".