Aboriginal-Canadians and Energy Literacy: A Survey of Opinions and Thoughts on Energy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Canada, the energy and resource industry, its investments, employment and products have an effect on every citizen and every cultural group. And yet, the public debate over energy projects in Canada is increasingly divisive. Aboriginal-Canadians are an important part of the debate over land use and energy development, and it is essential to understand the attitudes towards and knowledge of energy in this unique group. This survey of Aboriginal-Canadians from across the country reveals that their knowledge and opinions about Canada’s energy system are similar to that of Canadians polled in previous surveys of the general population and of business and policy leaders. However, in a few key areas, the opinions of AboriginalCanadians diverge from those of other poll respondents. Aboriginal-Canadians place less trust in business, industry groups and the government as reliable sources of information about energy issues. Thirty-four per cent of Aboriginal-Canadians put absolutely no trust in information from oil and gas companies, compared to 26 per cent of the general public, and 24 per cent of Aboriginal-Canadians put no trust in information from the federal government, compared to only 15 per cent of the general public. Additionally, Aboriginal-Canadians tend to place a much higher emphasis on environmental preservation over economic concerns: they say they are “very concerned” about the environmental impacts of energy production at a rate that is 14 percentage points higher than the general public. Land and land access are important issues for the Aboriginal-Canadians surveyed. They reluctantly support oil and gas pipelines near their communities, with only 38 per cent in favour. When project development delivers additional funding for educational and social programs in their community, support shifts to a slight majority (51 per cent). This survey highlights the need for simultaneously extending efforts to improve the energy literacy of this important demographic and cultural group, while incorporating their opinions, beliefs and land ethics into long-term energy development strategies. Overall, this group understands many of the overarching issues facing energy development that impacts them, yet reinforces the gap in public knowledge revealed in the previous surveys. Developing Canadian energy will require addressing Aboriginal-Canadian concerns, including lack of trust and the environmental impacts of energy projects.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".