Assessing Stakeholder Participation in Sub-Arctic Co-Management: Administrative Rulemaking and Private Agreements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper argues that participatory governance initiatives like co-management can be made effective through agency rulemaking. Using the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board as a case study, this paper affirms that it is possible for marginalized stakeholders to participate in co-management and alter decision-making. By using its formal authority to generate rules that reflect community perspectives, this board contextualized environmental assessment in community-based perspectives. The study of participation presented here illustrates: 1) that a high level of agency support for community participation in rule-making can lead to rules which reflect community perspectives; and 2) that agency implementation of community perspectives has led to the increased use of stakeholder collaboration through private agreement. Nonetheless, the paper also addresses limitations on the ability to translate social needs into privately negotiated agreements where negotiations depart from highly commoditized terms. Consequently, this paper questions the use of negotiated agreements to meet the goals of stakeholder participation, as conceived by deliberative democratic strands of new governance.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".