Free, Prior, and Informed Decision-Making About Proposed Development on Indigenous Territories in Northern Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This case study examined the experiences of consultation and consent-seeking processes among nine Indigenous communities in northern Ontario that, individually and collectively, are faced with complex decisions to be made since the discovery of several significant mineral deposits on their traditional territories. In examining the processes involved in making informed development decisions, this dissertation addressed four key research questions: 1) What are the roles, processes, laws and rights frameworks that influence resource governance in the Matawa First Nations region? 2) How is free, prior, and informed decision-making described by people living and working in the Matawa First Nations region? 3) What are the needs, opportunities, and challenges in making informed decisions about proposed development? and 4) What role does community-level dialogue play in making informed decisions? This research included two community kitchen table talks where participants gathered to discuss their views on self-determined development, to share their experiences with proposed regional developments, and to dialogue about a vision for their community. Drawing from two table talks, five key informant interviews, and an analysis of key documents from the tribal council (2010-2018), several themes emerged to advance our understanding of free, prior, and informed decision-making about lands and resources. Key findings suggest that, while development decisions are highly technical, free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) is fundamentally about the communities’ agency and their ability to meaningfully participate, to pursue their own meanings of prosperity, and to do so within the context of genuine partnerships with external government and industry proponents. Figures 3.1, 4.1, and 4.3 are presented to describe the complex organizational and interpersonal relationships associated with development decisions in the Matawa region. Lessons learned and considerations for future research are identified and discussed.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.030 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".