From pay‐out to participation: Indigenous mining employment as local development?
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Unprecedented numbers of Indigenous peoples in Canada and Australia are working in the mining industry. This study explores the proposition that Indigenous mining employment is a form of local development for these peoples. We establish links between the literatures on Indigenous work in the mining industry with development theory. For employment to be considered a form of local development we maintain that it must be understood through the framework of self‐determination, as this applies within a colonial context. A range of potentially enabling requirements is identified, including effective regional governance, career progression, gender equity and equality, and free prior and informed consent. We argue that, where such conditions are not in place, Indigenous peoples in settler states, such as Australia and Canada, risk swapping one kind of dependency for another: the welfare state for the mining economy. It is important that future research test the legitimacy of these conditions, while exploring alternative value propositions when mining companies seek to negotiate access to Indigenous peoples land and resources.
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 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 | 0.001 |
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 it