The Contentious Politics of Impact and Benefit Agreements: A “Sons of the Soil” Conflict Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper expands upon recent literature on Impact and Benefit Agreements (IBAs) to examine the contentious politics around this emerging form of governance. The paper breaks from previous studies as it adopts a new conceptual and theoretical approach to study the potential conflict dynamics surrounding IBAs. In doing so, it employs a “sons of the soil” conflict perspective to analyze the extent to which IBAs could serve to either fuel or prevent the outbreak of conflict between Indigenous peoples and non-Indigenous stakeholders. The paper draws upon recent developments in land use planning from the Province of Ontario, Canada, to serve as an empirical illustration of the potential conflictual dimensions of IBAs. Specifically, it examines the Government of Ontario&s;s efforts to promote sustainable natural resource development in the northern regions of the province through the adoption of the Far North Act—an Act that has generated much controversy since its adoption in 2010. While the analysis is more exploratory than confirmatory, the findings underscore the critical need for more research on the conflictual dimensions surrounding IBAs.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".