MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3134036380 · doi:10.1016/j.erss.2020.101897

Reconciliation through renewable energy? A survey of Indigenous communities, involvement, and peoples in Canada

2021· article· en· W3134036380 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergy Research & Social Science · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Acceptance of Renewable Energy
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousEquity (law)RestructuringPoliticsIndigenous rightsRenewable energyPolitical scienceEnvironmental resource managementEconomic growthLawEcologyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.421
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.006
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.104
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.260 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it