Understanding Consultation and Engagement with Indigenous Peoples in Resource Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada’s legal system has repeatedly ruled that the Crown has a duty to consult with Indigenous Peoples when approving and shaping resource development projects that are located on their land or could infringe on their rights. But the duty to consult means different things to Indigenous groups, government and industry. Different understandings among stakeholders, in particular Indigenous groups dissatisfaction with consultation, has often led to court challenges of project decisions. Recently, the Federal Court of Appeal’s decision to overturn the federal government’s approval of the Trans Mountain pipeline project in 2018 has attracted the attention of politicians, media and the public. Legal challenges have also occurred over smaller, yet still important, activities and decisions, where Indigenous communities and organizations find formal consultation processes, and the overall approach to engagement taken by industry and government, to be lacking. While these represent a small portion of the total number of cases where the legal duty to consult has been triggered (Newman 2017) they have an outsized impact on the relationships and level of trust between Indigenous Peoples, industry and governments. Finding ways to resolve these conflicts and improve relations can contribute to reconciliation between Indigenous Peoples, non-Indigenous Canadians and the Canadian state and is essential to the future of Canada’s natural resource industries.
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 | 0.017 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.043 | 0.049 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".