Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.112 | 0.149 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.094 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.023 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".