Consultation and engagement of Sahtú Dene and Métis people in the closure and reclamation of the Norman Wells Oilfield
Bibliographic record
Abstract
After over 100 years of operation, the Norman Wells Oilfield located in the Northwest Territories is beginning the process of closure and reclamation. In negotiating the Sahtú Dene and Métis Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement (1994), Sahtú people have gained more power over environmental decision-making, including directing the goals and outcomes of reclamation projects. A case study approach was used to collect qualitative data over 8 weeks in Fort Good Hope, Northwest Territories and 3 days in Norman Wells, Northwest Territories. Data were collected through 41 semi-structured interviews using open-ended questions with Sahtú people and key informants and an analysis of past engagement records to examine the structures and processes for how Sahtú Dene and Métis have been engaged in the Norman Wells Oilfield project throughout history, and identify opportunities for their meaningful involvement in remediation, reclamation, and monitoring in the future. Findings reveal that past engagement and consultation from Imperial Oil with the Sahtú people has been culturally inappropriate. This has resulted in a loss of trust, violation of Dene principles of reciprocity, and overall ineffective communication. These research findings are intended to contribute to the conversation about the Norman Wells Oilfield closure and reclamation, as well as broader discussions on Indigenous peoples' involvement in environmental reclamation after resource extraction.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".