Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal of this report is to review and evaluate elements of existing Canadian Indigenous Mining (Mineral)Policy frameworks to determine commonalties and unique principles. This report will explore the initially evaluation of policies using a high-level matrix developed initially to categorize common elements found in the policies. While the matrix was successful in identifying the common topics, it was not able to capture more subtle variances between policies in each category. This report serves as a more in-depth evaluation and comparison of the policies. The goal of this report is to understand the themes present within Canadian Indigenous Mining (Mineral) Policy and to formulate recommendations to other First Nations looking to develop their own Mining (Mineral) Policy. The Mining Policies considered were launched and developed under different contexts. All polices focus, at least in part, on mineral exploration and development. The Canadian Indigenous Mineral Policies reviewed as part of this research include: • Taku River Tlingit First Nation, 2007, Mining Policy. BC • Cree First Nation. 2010. Cree Nation Mining Policy • Northern Secwepemc te Qelmucw. 2014, Northern Secwepemc te Qelmucw Mining Policy, BC • Tsilhqot’in First Nation. 2014, Tsilhqot’in National Government Mining Policy, BC • Kasabonika First Nation. 2007, Traditional Territory Lands and Resources Planning & Development Policy, ON • Anishinabek First Nation. 2009, Below the Surface Anishinabek Mining Strategy, ON • Tahltan First Nation. 1987, Tahltan Tribal Council Resource Development Policy Statement, BC • Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, 2007, Policy Concerning Uranium Mining in Nunavut, Nunavut • Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, 2006, Background Paper on the NTI Uranium Policy, Nunavut • Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, 1997, Mining Policy, Nunavut • Makivik Coporation, 2015, Nunavik Mining Policy, Nunavik All policies included in the evaluation were made public by the First Nations. Thank you to these Nations who provided policies for analysis. Keywords: Mining, Canada, First Nations, Indigenous, Land Use
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 | 0.025 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.040 | 0.061 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".