Interweaving Indigenous and Settler Knowledges for Environmental Protection in Resource Development and Indigenous Conciliation in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada has prioritized “reconciliation” with Indigenous peoples just as debates over the ecological impacts of extractive industries are rising in volume and vigour in the public sphere. While apparently distinct, these two substantial and pressing priorities—and their underlying harms of colonialism and extractivism—can be seen as intertwined issues of social, economic, and environmental justice and sustainability. Thus, interweaving—more than “integrating” or “bridging” as employed in the literature—Indigenous ways of living and knowing and Euro-Canadian knowledge systems in resource development projects stands to help Canadians advance both environmental protection and respect for First Peoples and their traditionally used and claimed territories. Building on these premises, this study by “a White person of consciousness” examines the needs, benefits, obligations, frameworks, and challenges of involving Indigenous ways of knowing in the current framework for approving and managing resource development projects in Canada. It notes imperatives and efforts to link Indigenous and settler systems of “knowledge” in such projects and lessons learned and suggests best practices for policies and practices aimed at encouraging both environmental protection and Indigenous conciliation, which can further each other. Finally, the study considers implications of such interweaving for Canada’s international standing.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".