MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392815679 · doi:10.29173/jaed305

Reframing Forest-Based Development As First Nation–Municipal Collaboration: Lessons from Lake Superior’s North Shore

2011· article· en· W4392815679 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Ryan Bullock

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Aboriginal Economic Development · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNatural Resources CanadaLakehead UniversityIvey FoundationAlgoma University
KeywordsCognitive reframingContext (archaeology)Corporate governanceEmpowermentPolitical sciencePower (physics)Public administrationEconomic growthSociologyGeographyBusinessLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Changes in Northern Ontario's planning and policy context (e.g., forest tenure reform, Far North Act) are creating opportunities and obligations for First Nations and towns that often are not matched by the local capacity, resources, and governance structures requisite for effective and equitable participation. This paper documents the early stages of a First Nation-municipal forestbased development initiative in the Northeast Superior Region and interprets evolving perspectives of 27 First Nation and non-First Nation interviewees concerning the establishment of counterpart regional governance forums - the Northeast Superior Forest Community and Northeast Superior Regional Chiefs' Forum. The analysis shows how contrasting framings of common problems, solutions, identities, and power relations contributed to conflict but also innovation for eventual collaboration. First Nations acted on their obligation to teach other groups how they wanted to be engaged and the importance of developing culturally appropriate protocols to initiate and structure working relationships. First Nations and municipal representatives realized the need and benefit of redistributing different sources of power to strengthen their network and the common voice of the region. The conclusion offers lessons about building trust and relationships, the role of teaching and learning, and avenues to empowerment for fostering First Nation-municipal collaboration.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.462
Threshold uncertainty score0.930

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0270.015
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.309
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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Aboriginal Economic DevelopmentSame topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207