“What About the Salmon?” A Critical Analysis of the Pacific Northwest LNG Project in British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores the ecological, social, and political implications of the Pacific Northwest liquefied natural gas (LNG) project, which was approved in September 2016 to be built on Lelu Island, British Columbia. The paper situates this LNG project in Canada's settler colonial history and in recent debates over pipelines in British Columbia. Following a description of the approved project, the paper explores the perspectives of industry leaders, government officials, environmental experts, and First Nation communities. Industry leaders support the development, citing economic growth and a reduction in global carbon emissions as benefits. Governments officials largely agree with industry leaders, stating the project would create jobs. They also argue that the project would have limited environmental impacts. However, environmental experts disagree, stating that the project would increase global carbon emissions and have irreversible damages on the local environment. Finally, First Nation communities are divided: some see the project as an economic opportunity while others believe it will result in environmental degradation. However, despite the range of concerns raised by these actors, significant issues have been overlooked. The paper explores these oversights, which include the fact that 'buried' colonial epistemologies underlie the debate and that Lelu Island is unceded Indigenous territory. Overall, the research presented in this paper suggests that the project should not precede until (all) members of the affected First Nation communities have been properly consulted.
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 | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.059 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| 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".