Reconciliation through renewable energy? A survey of Indigenous communities, involvement, and peoples in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reconciliation is about the genuine restructuring and transformation of the relationships between Indigenous and settler people. Although renewable energy has not been inherently positive for Indigenous peoples, Indigenous communities in Canada have been participating in renewable energy production, which presents a potential pathway to reconciliation, climate change mitigation and a just energy transition. This study explores whether and to what extent community energy—defined by deep engagement in process, as well as local and collective benefits—relates to elements of participation associated with reconciliation, both conceptually and empirically. A conceptual framework based in community energy was developed to characterize and analyse 194 renewable energy projects associated with Indigenous communities. This framework considered ‘community’ as belonging to traditional land, places where Indigenous people live, and as local authority, such as the Indigenous political organization of a settlement or reserve. Projects were examined by legal form, project location, and control. The findings do not provide strong indications of reconciliation. We suggest that one pathway to reconciliation is equity ownership, which has risen over time, although most projects located on traditional territories and Indigenous communities generally have minority or no ownership. There were no projects associated with Métis communities, and only 6 associated with Inuit communities. Institutional change requires implementation of free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) and extensive policy supports. Further research with and by Indigenous communities should examine how to support equity ownership by examining the findings of the 41 projects controlled by Indigenous communities and increased attention to Métis and Inuit communities.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".