MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2905526666 · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-03152-7_2

“Consensus Building in Engagement Processes” for Reducing Risks in Developing Sustainable Pathways: Indigenous Interest as Core Elements of Engagement

2018· book-chapter· en· W2905526666 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jenny Lieu, Luis D. Virla, Ryan Abel, Cecilia Fitzpatrick

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMining and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsAssembly of First NationsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousGovernment (linguistics)Context (archaeology)Greenhouse gasCommunity engagementIndigenous rightsBusinessPolitical scienceEnvironmental planningEconomic growthGeographyPublic relationsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Canada is one of the top ten greenhouse gas (GHG) emitters in the world, and of the nation’s total, the province of Alberta was the biggest emitter primarily due to the fossil fuel industry and power generation. Alberta is currently facing a challenge to reduce GHG emissions in line with Canada’s obligations to meet Paris Agreement goals. Additionally, the oil sand deposits in Alberta are located on the traditional land of Indigenous communities; therefore, the development, regulation and consultation of this sector have a direct impact not only on emissions but also on the socioeconomic welfare of Indigenous communities. Thus, the transition towards a low-carbon pathway in the oil sand industry is closely connected to upholding the rights of Indigenous peoples. Meaningfully consulting with Indigenous peoples is essential when developing low-carbon pathways that impact the environment and wellbeing of the community. Failure to consult proposed changes with Indigenous communities can lead to risks for the government, the industry and the communities themselves. These risks have been prevalent in the current consultation process in Alberta which has led to litigation, creating mistrust between the government, industry and Indigenous community. Given this background, we present a Consensus Building in Engagement Processes framework that includes Indigenous consensus, knowledge, interests and rights as a focal point of a consultation process required for decision-making. The consultation process is presented within the context of land use decisions impacting a low-carbon future for oil sand development. The framework is based on seeking consensus from all parties involved and aims to help to reduce risks resulting from decisions that do not consider the interests and rights of communities most impacted by resource development or climate mitigation pathways.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.110
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.076
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.110
Threshold uncertainty score0.582

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1100.076
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0170.048
Scholarly communication0.0150.011
Open science0.0060.030
Research integrity0.0100.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.112
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.185 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMining and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207