Rhetoric Deployed in the Communication Between the National Energy Board and Aboriginal Communities in the Case of the Trans Mountain Pipeline
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Canadian government has a duty to consult Aboriginal peoples on projects that impact them. However, the overall framework of the consultation and the definition of certain key terms, such as “impact” and “consent,” are decided exclusively by the government. Retaining hold of this decision-making power is inconsistent with rulings by the Supreme Court of Canada and United Nations’ Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The rhetoric used in the proposal, advertisement, and approval of the Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion reflects and perpetuates both the power imbalance and the failure of the Canadian government to invest in a symbiotic and long-term relationship with First Nations, Metis, and Inuit peoples of Canada. The Canadian government uses similar rhetorical strategies as Kinder Morgan, such as accentuating pipeline positives and downplaying negatives, which construct a perspective that favours economic development and marginalizes Indigenous rights, human well-being, and ecological intactness.
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 | 0.017 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.043 | 0.049 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".