“Back in the Day, You Opened Your Mine and on You Went”: Extractives Industry Perspectives on Sport, Responsibility, and Development in Indigenous Communities in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past two decades, significant policy shifts within Canada have urged corporations from all sectors, including the extractives industry, to fund and support sport for development (SFD) programming in Indigenous communities, often through corporate social responsibility strategies. The idea that sport is an appropriate tool of development for Indigenous communities in Canada and that the extractives industry is a suitable partner to implement development programs highlight profound tensions regarding ongoing histories of resource extraction and settler colonialism. To explore these tensions, in this paper, the authors drew on interviews conducted with extractives industry representatives of four companies that fund and implement such SFD programs. From these interviews, three overarching discourses emerged in relation to the extractives industry’s role in promoting development through sport: SFD is a catalyst to positive relationships between industry and community, SFD is a contributor to “social good” in Indigenous communities, and extractives industry funding of SFD is “socially responsible.”
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.053 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".