MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2950116893

Building trust, addressing uncertainty: developing Aboriginal consultation practices for mineral exploration companies

2014· dissertation· en· W2950116893 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueKnowledge Commons (Lakehead University) · 2014
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMining and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMineral explorationMining engineeringEnvironmental planningEnvironmental resource managementBusinessEngineeringGeologyGeographyEnvironmental scienceGeochemistry
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis examines how mineral exploration companies in the Thunder Bay region are consulting with Aboriginal communities. The research is based on new regulations put forth by the Ontario Ministry of Northern Development and Mines (MNDM) which, as part of a new plans and permits regime, require mining companies to consult with Aboriginal communities prior to any exploration occurring on their traditional lands. Historically, Aboriginal peoples have been left out of resource development decision making, but with increased recognition of Aboriginal and Treaty rights, they have begun demanding prior consultation, and have become influential in natural resource development. For background information and better understanding of the new regulations, interviews were conducted with two representatives from
\nthe MNDM. Next, in order to examine what effect these new regulations have had on the mining industry, I interviewed representatives of 15 companies from April 2013 to December 2013. To quantify aspects of this research, this study evaluated companies using Cultural Intelligence
\n(CQ) and Dynamic Capabilities (DC) frameworks. My analysis of interview data yielded 21 prominent themes, 7 of which were queried while 14 occurred spontaneously. The most common themes that occurred were ?concerns with government? and ?operational difficulties?. CQ scores ranged from 50% to 89.3% and DC scores ranged from 14.3% to 82.5%. The results show that many companies were already consulting with Aboriginal communities before it became mandatory, but are still facing challenges. The main issues that companies are facing as a result of the regulations are: lengthened project timelines, lack of capacity and resources to properly consult communities, communication with Aboriginal management, unregulated community expenses, uncertainties of role responsibility, and lack of government involvement. I explain the usefulness of the CQ and DC scales in this study and how they are excellent tools for comparing companies that have had successful engagement experiences with those that experience unproductive engagement. I believe that companies are consulting with communities as best
\nthey can with the resources they have, but consultation must not be just between company and community; the government must play a stronger role in such proceedings.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.877
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.055
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.251 · 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