Ongoing Colonization and Indigenous Environmental Heritage Rights: A Learning Experience with Cree First Nation Communities, Saskatchewan, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ongoing colonization of the environment and natural resources has negatively impacted environmental heritage rights in many parts of the world, particularly Indigenous environmental rights and their relationships with the environment. For many Indigenous communities, the history of colonialism became a history of dispossession for Indigenous peoples, their land, water, traditional knowledge, and practices. This paper addresses the ongoing environmental heritage conflict between the Cree First Nation communities’ traditional environmental heritage practices and developmental energy projects in Saskatchewan, Canada. Drawing from a relational research framework, we (Cree First Nation Knowledge Keeper and settler scholar of color) shared our learning reflections from Cree First Nation communities on how energy projects (particularly pipeline leaks) have negatively impacted Indigenous land, water, and traditional heritage and practices. In this paper, we focus our learnings from the Cree First Nation communities on the following questions: Why and how do developmental projects neglect Indigenous heritage rights, particularly environmental heritage rights? What can be or should be done about it? What are our responsibilities as researchers and educators? In this study, we learned about traditional-knowledge-based consultation and solutions to the ongoing challenges of incorporating Indigenous interests into environmental heritage to foster Indigenous environmental heritage rights. We also highlight how Indigenous perspectives on their environmental heritage rights are interconnected with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) from our learning reflections, particularly Goal 3, Good Health and Wellbeing, Goal 10, Reduced Inequalities, Goal 13, Climate Action, Goal 15, Life on Land, and Goal 16, Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".