Seeking indigenous consensus on the impacts of oil sands development in Alberta, Canada
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
This paper presents the results of a Cultural Consensus Analysis (CCA) that was conducted to determine the degree to which Indigenous residents of the Peace and Athabasca oil sands regions of Alberta, Canada share cultural knowledge about the associated impacts of oil sands development. We found that 87% (64/75) of respondents believe that oil sands development has contaminated the Peace and Athabasca Rivers, as well as the fish in them. These responses indicate the existence of a cultural truth regarding the negative impacts of oil sands development, with respondents demonstrating a higher than average probability for knowing the culturally correct answer. However, we also found that there was regional variability between Indigenous residents of the two regions, with more respondents from the Peace River region believing fish are safe to eat and scientific information concerning oil sands development to be trustworthy. The results of this study provide a more informed understanding of the variable experiences Indigenous peoples may have with regard to oil sands development in Alberta.
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 | 0.000 |
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 it