Status Quo Sorrows: The Failures of Energy Project Consultations and Reconciliatory Paths Forward
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada’s prevailing Aboriginal consultation regime for major energy projects is not working. Indeed, Indigenous peoples, industry proponents, and the Crown have all expressed increasing frustration and dismay at the uncertainty and acrimony that a legal regime intended to facilitate reconciliation between Canada and Indigenous peoples has counterproductively generated. In this paper, I describe the underlying principles of a process-oriented reconciliation that animate the Court’s jurisprudence on section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. I then identify the failures in effectively translating these principles to the major energy context, focusing in particular on the harms generated by the lack of accountability and transparency of the National Energy Board/Canada Energy Regulator administrative scheme. I finally consider two alternatives or additions to contemporary resource project consultations – namely, Impact and Benefit Agreements (IBAs) and a proposed Indigenous veto – finding that an Indigenous veto may be an especially effective means of introducing greater equity, fairness, and certainty to major energy project development in Canada, to the benefit of all relevant stakeholders.
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 | 0.121 | 0.183 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.055 | 0.094 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.028 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.018 | 0.026 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".