Status Quo Sorrows: The Failures of Energy Project Consultations and Reconciliatory Paths Forward
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it