Not paid to dance at the powwow: Power relations, community benefits, and wind energy in M’Chigeeng First Nation, Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The literature on wind energy developments upholds distributional and procedural justice as key drivers of community acceptance of wind turbines. However, this Eurocentric and settler-based literature routinely overlooks Indigenous contexts, causing concern that the energy transition might reproduce the socio-economic inequalities of the fossil fuel era. Through 32 semi-structured interviews conducted within a community-based approach, this paper examines the lived experience of people living with wind turbines in M’Chigeeng First Nation in Ontario, an Indigenous community who owns and operates two wind turbines. We examine what the turbines mean to M’Chigeeng members, how owning the turbines relates to the community’s values and goals, and to which extent M’Chigeeng’s engagement in renewable energy portends a redefinition of relationships between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people in Canada. The key themes in our findings are acceptance and support of the turbines, intra community communication, the importance of ownership, and relationships. While members expressed the need for clear and up-to-date communication on the project and are yet to see the generated financial benefits, intracommunity tensions remain manageable for the time being, tempered by a general pride from owning the turbines. Connecting relationships to restorative justice and recognition justice, we argue that these latter dimensions are equally, if not more meaningful, than procedural and distributional justice for understanding the meaning of turbines in M’Chigeeng First Nation. This study reaffirms the importance of attending to place histories at the broadest scale in examining communities’ responses to renewable energy, especially in settler countries like Canada.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".