Exploring Ethical Space in land use planning: a case study of the Upper Columbia, British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2019, British Columbia (BC) adopted Bill 41: The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA). DRIPA committed BC to developing a new planning process, modernized land use planning, that involves ethical collaboration with Indigenous Peoples. Although ethical decision-making in planning theory has emerged in academic discourse, planning practitioners are missing clear frameworks to implement theory in practice. Ethical Space, a conceptual approach used to balance power between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people, may prove to be a promising implementation framework. This paper offers an exploratory application of Ethical Space for land use planning in Upper Columbia, a region in expressed need of modernized land use planning efforts. Research methods include semi-structured interviews and document analysis. Findings present recommendations for Upper Columbia governments to begin Ethical Space in land use planning. Key insights are transferable to planners with an interest in ethical collaborations between multiple governance structures.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.033 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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".