MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3033956301 · doi:10.1080/11745398.2020.1768877

The extractives industry: (un)likely and (un)welcome partners in regenerating Indigenous cultures in Canada?

2020· article· en· W3033956301 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Nicolien van Luijk, Audrey R. Giles, Rob Millington, Lyndsay Hayhurst

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Leisure Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityBrock UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsIndigenousDominionLegitimacyIndigenous culturePolitical sciencePublic relationsPoliticsEcologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we critically examine the ways in which the extractives industry in Canada is engaging in partnerships with Indigenous-led organizations that promote Indigenous cultural practices through leisure and cultural programmes. We examined two cases in Canada, the Northwest Territories On The Land Collaborative that partners with Dominion Diamond and Diavik Diamond Mines, and the Urban Native Youth Association, an organization that is partnering with Suncor Energy Inc. to develop a Native Youth Centre in Vancouver, British Columbia. Our findings reveal that these extractives companies are being framed as positive partners for the regeneration of Indigenous cultures in Canada, while at the same time continuing to have negative environmental and social impacts on Indigenous communities. These findings build on a growing critical consensus that corporate social responsibility practices are part of a strategy that allows corporations to gain legitimacy and access to resources whilst protecting their economic bottom line.

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.492
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.174
GPT teacher head0.462
Teacher spread0.288 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Leisure ResearchSame topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207