Community Governance for Small Modular Reactor (SMR) Development: Lessons from Northern and Indigenous Energy Projects
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Remote Indigenous communities in northern Canada often suffer from energy insecurity and energy poverty. In developing local clean energy production, there is an obvious benefit for government and industry partnering with these communities. However, the record of these partnerships is poor, with some failing to produce the expected benefits and others failing to get off the ground at all. This article is based on a study of four case studies of renewable energy projects in Indigenous communities in northern Saskatchewan and Alberta, in which I interviewed community project leaders to understand why these communities were interested in energy projects, what they hoped to achieve, and their experience with their partners. I also interviewed government and industry partners. While the results underline the importance of Indigenous intermediaries who can move easily between the communities and the larger energy production context, they also reveal a fundamental misalignment of expectations between Indigenous communities and their partners. Recent discussions about the potential for small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs) in remote communities have generally focused on features of the technology rather than on aspects of the social context of Indigenous communities. I argue that, for communities to fully understand the advantages and drawbacks of this technology, much more attention needs to be paid to the construction of a safe space where communities can frame the discussion within Indigenous world views and lived experience. I offer some policy suggestions for how this space can be constructed and protected.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 it