(Re-)Envisioning Natural Resource Management Involving First Nations: Toward an Effective Co-Management Policy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, I posit a relationship between what I consider to be two distinct views of natural resource management: the reductionist and holistic views. The purpose of this comparison is to highlight the dangers of reducing environmental management to its ability to bolster a nation’s economic status. Part of the problem with this view is that it cannot take seriously the needs and desires of Indigenous persons. As such, I compare the reductionist view with the holistic view. The holistic view does not only consider the economics of natural resources; unlike the reductionist view, it aims to take seriously the needs and desires of Indigenous communities that have used natural resources in their territories since time immemorial. To illustrate the differences between the reductionist and holistic views, I examine at length the case of the James Bay Hydro Development in Quebec, Canada. I then apply these insights to an international context by utilizing the literature from Australia. The literature from both Canada and Australia implies that natural resource management involving First Nations needs to take a holistic approach to water management and policy such that the hopes, needs, and desires of Indigenous communities are not merely placated, but fulfilled.
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 | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".