Stories and the Participation of Indigenous Women in Natural Resource Governance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans le présent article, les autrices examinent l’absence des femmes autochtones dans les régimes de gestion participative des ressources naturelles au Canada. Les autrices considèrent la pertinence juridique et politique des récits autochtones comme une source de savoir et comme une méthode pour traiter de l’actuelle absence de participation des femmes autochtones. La gestion participative est l’instrument règlementaire dominant sur lequel s’appuient les gouvernements provinciaux et territoriaux pour gérer les ressources naturelles de concert avec les peuples autochtones. Cependant, les recherches féministes autochtones ont soulevé de sérieuses questions sur l’exclusion des femmes autochtones de la gestion publique et privée, les paramètres de leur exclusion et les conditions de rectification de cette situation. Les autrices se fondent sur les recherches féministes autochtones et sur la gestion de l’eau pour dégager trois principes d’utilisation du récit à des fins participatives : (1) les récits favorisent l’échange et le dialogue ; (2) les récits revitalisent la responsabilité des femmes de s’engager dans la gestion ; (3) les récits pluralisent les normes de gestion des ressources. En s’appuyant sur ces trois principes, les autrices formulent des recommandations politiques visant à créer un espace règlementaire permettant d’inclure le savoir, les responsabilités et les capacités des femmes autochtones à l’égard des ressources naturelles. In this article, the authors explore the absence of Indigenous women in participatory natural resource governance regimes in Canada. The authors consider the legal and political relevance of Indigenous stories as a source of knowledge and as a method to address the participation gap currently experienced by Indigenous women. Participatory governance is the dominant regulatory arrangement relied upon by provincial and territorial governments to manage natural resources in concert with Indigenous peoples. However, Indigenous feminist scholarship has raised serious questions about the exclusion of Indigenous women from public and private governance, the method of their exclusion, and the conditions for rectification. The authors draw on Indigenous feminist and water governance scholarship to generate three principles of storying for the purposes of participation: (1) stories facilitate exchange and dialogue; (2) stories revitalize women’s responsibility to engage in governance; and (3) stories pluralize the norms of resource governance. Relying upon these three principles, the authors put forward policy recommendations with the aim of creating the regulatory space to include Indigenous women’s knowledge, responsibilities, and capabilities with respect to natural resources.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".