MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3005454208 · doi:10.1163/15718115-02702012

Consent, Resistance and the Duty to Consult

2020· article· en· W3005454208 on OpenAlex
Avigail Eisenberg

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal on Minority and Group Rights · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMining and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousResistance (ecology)DutyState (computer science)Agency (philosophy)Political scienceInformed consentGovernment (linguistics)PoliticsLawIndigenous rightsStatement (logic)Public relationsPublic administrationBusinessSociologySocial scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Until recently, conflicts between Indigenous peoples and the Canadian state over land development projects have proceeded without the requirement that the state or companies obtain Indigenous consent. In 2018, this changed when the Government of Canada released a statement identifying ‘free, prior, and informed consent’ ( fpic ) as a requirement of meaningful engagement on projects that implicate Indigenous rights. This article considers the promise of consent within consultation processes. Consent is better than its absence, but conflicts over land development often involve rival claims to authority. The principle of consent cannot alone address the challenges posed by these rival claims nor offer appropriate responses to them. Through organised resistance, communities develop collective agency, forge political alliances, and re-appropriate their authority over territory and resources that are significant to them. The introduction of fpic clarifies but does not replace the benefits of resistance for some communities.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.743
Threshold uncertainty score0.186

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.208 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it