Multilevel governance, climate (in)justice, and settler colonialism—evidence from First Nations disaster evacuations in so-called Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wildfires and subsequent community evacuations offer a highly visible example of climate change-induced dislocation. In so-called Canada, both the changing climate and reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples are policy priorities for the federal government and certain provincial governments, like the Province of British Columbia. Despite these purported policy priorities, we find evidence that colonial logics–like the rejection of Indigenous governments’ capacity and knowledge to shape this policy area–underpin emergency management, resulting in the perpetuation of inequities and less effective responses. By analyzing data from Indigenous Services Canada, we find that First Nations are disproportionately affected by largely climate-related disasters, evacuating at a higher frequency–328 times higher, on average. We then employ a decolonial lens to analyze the policy landscape and actions taken to date and examine whether emergency management is moving away from unilateral policymaking in favor of more horizontal, multilevel governance arrangements. We find that both the federal and British Columbia governments perpetuate barriers that prevent First Nations from acting as effective first responders in emergency situations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".