Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a rigorous literature review identifying and critically examining the characteristics of decision-making processes in the mining sector that empower or disempower Indigenous communities in north-eastern Ontario, specifically Treaty no. 9 territory. The conclusions drawn from this review aim to inform future research throughout my doctoral program and other researchers and practitioners within the mining sector. The Ring of Fire is a controversial but lucrative mineral cache in north-eastern Ontario worth an estimated $60 billion that may position nearby rural and remote communities for economic growth. However, critics caution that proposed mineral exploration and extraction in the region may threaten the sustainability of First Nations communities. Fifty secondary sources, academic and grey literature produced by both Indigenous and non-Indigenous authors, were reviewed and I propose three “myths” surrounding relations between the mining sector and Indigenous communities in Ontario. I position the synthesis of literature in response to these myths to provide insight into false assumptions that may form the basis of community-mine relations. First, critical examination of the signing of Treaty 9 in the early twentieth century shows that Indigenous communities in northern Ontario did not unilaterally cede and surrender title rights to their traditional territories. Second, the literature falsifies the notion that Indigenous communities are inherently anti-development and show that Indigenous communities do not always unilaterally refute opportunities for resource development. Third, the literature debunks the idea that the duty to consult and accommodate is always triggered before proponents infringe on Indigenous and treaty rights on traditional territory. The duty to consult and accommodate, triggered by the fiduciary duty of the Crown to protect aboriginal and treaty rights outlined in the Constitution Act of 1982, attempts to address the exclusion of Indigenous perspectives in decision-making processes within the mining sector. However, current consultation standards do not ensure an “effective” or “meaningful” decision-making process. Narrowing in on some false assumptions surrounding relations built between mining operations and Indigenous communities, this rigorous literature review can support researchers and practitioners working with Indigenous communities in the mining sector to generate novel approaches to community-mine relations in the future.
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 | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".