To Approve or not to Approve? A Comparative Analysis of State-Company-Indigenous Community Interactions in Mining in Canada and Sweden
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This Special Section explores the interplay between Indigenous peoples, industry, and the state in five proposed and active mining projects in Canada and Sweden. The overall aim is to identify factors shaping the quality of Indigenous community-industry-state interactions in mining and mine development. An ambition underlying the research is to develop knowledge to help manage mining related land-use conflicts in Sweden by drawing on Canadian comparisons and experience. This paper synthesizes the comparative research that has been conducted across jurisdictions in three Canadian provinces and Sweden. It focuses on the interplay between the properties of the governance system, the quality of interaction and governance outcomes. We combine institutional and interactive governance theory and use the concept of governability to assess how and why specific outcomes, such as mutually beneficial interaction, collaboration, or opposition, occurred. The analysis suggests there are measures that can be taken by the Swedish Government to improve the governability of mining related issues, by developing alternative, and more effective, avenues to recognize, and protect, Sámi rights and culture, to broaden the scope and increase the legitimacy and transparency of the EIAs, to raise the quality of interaction and consultation, and to develop tools to actively stimulate and support collaboration and partnerships on equal terms. Generally, we argue that Indigenous community responses to mining must be understood within a larger framework of Indigenous self-determination, in particular the communities' own assessments of their opportunities to achieve their long-term objectives using alternative governing modes and types of interactions.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".