Indigenous youth perspectives on extractivism and living in a good way in the Yukon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
By means of a case study, this chapter seeks to address how the historical and contemporary prevalence of extractivism influences contemporary Indigenous youth’s lives in the Yukon. How does extractivism impact the labour market, the environment, living off the land, wellbeing and health, as well as Indigenous languages and ceremony? How do art, ceremony and games as well as revitalizing Indigenous languages help create a better future for Indigenous (and non-Indigenous) young people living in the Yukon? The chapter emphasizes that mining provides opportunities to work for some, but not everyone feels comfortable with rigid rules and restrictions at camp. Sexist, racist and ageist assumptions still prevail in the industry, structural biases exist towards wage work versus living on the land, and the climate crisis makes living off the land more difficult. Living in a good way for study participants means not only to engage actively in their Indigenous cultures and languages, but also that legacies and contemporary forms of extractivism need to be addressed on all levels. Mining operations should always respect Indigenous protocols and relationships with the land, and mitigate adverse environmental impacts in order to maximize local benefits and minimize local risk.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".