“Unless you get to know us, you’re not going to know our passion”
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
In British Columbia, First Nation consultation is formally operationalized through land referrals, a system by which governments and industry proponents share information with First Nations about specific developments on their territories. Using the lenses of equal capacity, social learning, and Indigenous knowledge, this research examines land referrals processes on Nadleh Whut’en First Nation Territory to explore experiences with current consultation practices. Despite efforts to move towards equal decision-making authority over First Nation Territories, consultation remains a key aspect of Indigenous-Crown relations and it is critical that planners enhance their understanding of the duty to consult. Interviews with Nadleh Whut’en knowledge holders and land users and forestry key informants highlight deficiencies in the referrals process as a vehicle for engaging communities in decision making. Challenges include short timelines that manufacture false consent and a lack of cross-cultural dialogue centered on community values and needs. This research fills a gap by advancing understandings of the technical and procedural details of current consultation practice, including where it falls short in protecting Aboriginal rights and how such shortcomings impact people’s lives.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 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