Making space for indigenous law in state‐led decisions about hydropower dams: Lessons from environmental assessments in Canada and Brazil
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
Abstract The article examines the environmental impact assessment of hydropower dams as an opportunity for applying indigenous laws. Although indigenous laws of affected communities exist and have guided the management of land and natural resources for millennia, they have not yet occupied a significant place in state‐led decision making. Consequently, decisions to approve dams, based on state laws and officials' discretionary power, affect indigenous peoples in distinct and profound ways. The analysis is based on the comparison between two decision‐making processes—Site C (Canada) and Belo Monte (Brazil) dams. The methodology includes the application of principles from the environmental justice literature, the analysis of interviews, case law and legislation. The article concludes that environmental justice for indigenous peoples in environmental decision making of projects with significant impacts, such as large dams, requires recognizing and making institutional spaces for implementing indigenous laws.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it