MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3210067450 · doi:10.7939/r3-xrx7-2274

How and Why Indigenous Peoples are Engaged in Wildland Fire Management

2021· article· en· W3210067450 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Courtney Askin

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Alberta Library · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousEnvironmental resource managementGeographyEnvironmental planningPolitical scienceEnvironmental scienceEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Little is known about how and why Indigenous peoples are engaged in wildland fire management particularly in the areas of wildfire prevention, mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery abilities in the event of a threatening wildfire. This qualitative study explored how and why Indigenous peoples in six case study jurisdictions in Canada and New Zealand are engaged with government fire management agencies in wildfire management, barriers to engagement, and identifies opportunities to increase engagement between governments and Indigenous peoples. This research used a qualitative research approach with a case study design. Twenty-nine participants were interviewed from Canada and New Zealand, including in the provinces of British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Ontario, and Nova Scotia, as well as the Northwest Territories. Findings indicate that engagement between government fire management agencies and Indigenous peoples predominantly occurs when agencies respond to a wildland fire affecting Indigenous land and in the employment of Indigenous peoples. The key barriers identified by Indigenous leaders were a lack of trust towards the government, and limited financial support by the federal government that would allow Indigenous communities the ability to hire staff to support emergency management including engagement, as well as the fire suppression equipment needed to respond to wildfires in or near their community. Government participants indicated that a lack of funding to hire the appropriate amount of staff to support engagement with Indigenous communities as a barrier, as was a lack of Indigenous cultural awareness and history in government staff, and the lack of clarity around the roles and responsibilities of the multiple agencies involved during emergency response. Recommendations for increasing engagement are provided. This research concludes with a way forward for both Indigenous and government leaders that can enhance their relationship.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.772
Threshold uncertainty score0.454

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.009
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.004
GPT teacher head0.138
Teacher spread0.134 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of Alberta Library→Same topicFire effects on ecosystems→French-language works237,207→