From Participant to Partner: Applying Indigenous Understandings of Treaties to Canada’s Environmental Impact Assessment Processes
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
The following seeks to explore solutions forward amid increasing pressure to improve the quality of Indigenous involvement within environmental assessments (EAs). This paper describes the historical entanglements of resource development, colonialism, and limited recognition of Indigenous interests within EAs currently. It deconstructs the implications of the following: extractive methodologies habitually used within EAs; distinctions between Canadian and Indigenous legal systems; cultural variances in perceptions of power structures; and noticeable systemic issues within EA processes. Drawing from Indigenous understandings of treaties, this article brings forth some key considerations necessary to establishing meaningful Indigenous involvement during EAs. It positions treaties as a powerful, practical orientation towards envisioning a framework that utilizes practices which foster genuine collaboration and dialogue amongst all parties involved. To this end, this article contends with the importance of addressing gaps in quality of Indigenous involvement during EAs, particularly as calls for reconciliation and sustainable environmental decision-making continue.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 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