MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4323322621 · doi:10.22584/nr54.2023.007

The Duty to Consult and Colonial Capitalism: Indigenous Rights and Extractive Industries in the Inuit Homeland in Canada

2023· article· en· W4323322621 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Northern Review · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHomelandIndigenousColonialismDutyCapitalismGovernment (linguistics)Political scienceIndigenous rightsLawPolitical economyEthnologyEconomyHuman rightsSociologyEconomicsPoliticsEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Advance Online Article published March 6, 2023This article contributes to academic debates about the relationship between Indigenous rights and the expansion of capitalism and colonialism in Canada. Using case studies of duty to consult litigation related to resource extraction on and near Inuit territory, I argue that Inuit experiences with the duty to consult have been mixed. While Inuit have won some important victories in the courts, in other cases the duty to consult has provided a notably weak legal mechanism for Inuit to either stop unwanted extraction or compel the government to impose effective mitigation measures to safeguard Inuit harvesting rights. The duty to consult appears to mostly enable, rather than impede, the expansion of colonial and capitalist social relations in the Inuit homeland.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.946
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.274 · 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