THEORIZING CO-PRODUCTION AND COEXISTENCE: A CASE STUDY OF MUNICIPAL-INDIGENOUS PLANNING IN THOMPSON, MANITOBA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Given the growing presence of urban-based Indigenous peoples in Canadian cities, the increasing responsibilities of cities with respect to shaping policy, and the shift towards recognizing cities as playing an important role in addressing settler-colonialism, municipalities are well positioned to respond to the current discourses of reconciliation, Indigenous self-determination, and the honouring of treaty relationships. However, the urban planning approaches and mechanisms employed to-date have varied due to the lack of formal responsibilities encoded through policy to guide municipalities, and the diversity of settler and Indigenous geo-political realities. The purpose of this thesis is to better understand the municipal-Indigenous planning approaches that have been undertaken in the community of Thompson, Manitoba, located within Treaty 5 territory and the traditional territory of the Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation, while also contributing to current theorizations of co-production and coexistence. \nTwo planning approaches, the Thompson Indigenous Accord and the Thompson Economic Development Working Group (TEDWG), were analyzed using a framework developed from a synthesis of the literature pertaining to the concepts of co-production and coexistence. Data for this analysis was collected through semi-structured interviews with municipal government and Indigenous governance actors, as well as a document review. While these planning approaches are evidenced as going beyond traditional mainstream settler planning practices, it is also argued that these initiatives were highly subject to the waxing and waning of political will, in addition to other factors which influenced local configurations of power. Furthermore, the meaningfulness and progression of these planning initiatives has been a non-linear process, one that has been associated with the quality of the underpinning relationships and the degree of Indigenous decision-making power. These findings contribute to the development of more equitable and mutual planning paradigms by illustrating the importance of designing municipal-Indigenous planning approaches in ways that account for these factors, such as by facilitating the continuity of interpersonal and organizational relationships in the face of dynamic urban governance processes.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".