Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This paper aims to highlight blind spots in the discourse of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and stretch the boundaries of existent CSR frameworks within the particular context of resource extraction and with regard to the particular stakeholder group of Indigenous peoples in Canada. This context is important in light of the recommendations from the recent Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), as they relate to initiatives that businesses may take towards reconciliation with Indigenous people. Design/methodology/approach This paper brings together a disparate body of literature on CSR, Indigenous spiritual values and experiences of extractive practices on Indigenous ancestral lands. Suggestions are offered for empirical research and projects that may advance the project of reconciliation. Findings CSR may not be an appropriate framework for reconciliation without alteration to its managerial biases and ideological assumptions. The CSR discourse needs to accommodate the “free prior and informed consent” of Indigenous peoples and their spiritual values and knowledge vis-à-vis the land for resource extractive practices to edge towards being socially responsible when they occur on Canadian ancestral territories. Originality/value Canadian society exists in a post-TRC world, which demands that we reconcile with our past of denying Indigenous values and suppressing the cultures of Indigenous peoples from flourishing. This paper aspires to respond to the TRC’s recommendation for how businesses in the resource extractive industries may engage meaningfully and authentically with Indigenous people in Canada as a step towards reconciliation.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".