A Matter of Trust: The Role of Communities in Energy Decision-Making, Case Study: Wuskwatim Hydroelectric Facility, Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation, Manitoba
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The case study focuses on Manitoba Hydro and Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation’s (NCN) Wuskwatim project. Project overview The Wuskwatim project was the first time a utility company and an Aboriginal community entered a partnership to develop a major generating station, where NCN would purchase 33 percent of the project’s shares. Primary Wuskwatim components include the 200 MW generating station and dam on the Burntwood River at Taskinigup Falls, transmission lines to the provincial power grid and an access road. Construction of the generating station ran from 2006 to late 2012 at a cost of $1.3 billion. The $300-million transmission line was a separate Manitoba Hydro project. Canada has been engaged in a diverse renegotiation of our energy systems. In this time of rapid change, it is challenging to isolate specific factors that affect community confidence. A dominant theme in this case study was the importance of building and maintaining relationships. There was time and effort spent on transforming the relationship between NCN and Manitoba Hydro to overcome the legacy of distrust between the two players. The Wuskwatim case demonstrates a shift from engagement to consultation to collaboration. The partnership and co-creation model should be based on shared long-term interests and positions Indigenous communities to be key players, decision-makers and beneficiaries 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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.034 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".