Conclusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This book examines the interactions between Indigenous communities and mining operations, highlighting the complex interplay of legal and policy frameworks, environmental impacts, and socioeconomic considerations. Through comparative studies across regions of Canada, Fennoscandia, and Australasia, it underscores the persistent challenges faced by Indigenous communities in asserting their rights and participating in decision-making processes regarding mining projects. Despite increasing recognition of Indigenous rights and a focus on corporate social responsibility, mining operations often continue to prioritize development over these rights, leading to limited Indigenous participation and significant socioenvironmental impacts. The book delves into Indigenous engagement strategies, the exercise of agency beyond traditional decision-making processes, and the socioeconomic and cultural impacts of mining, not only emphasizing the asymmetrical power relations but also noting instances where Indigenous Peoples have asserted their agency, challenging state and corporate definitions of their rights to negotiate beneficial outcomes. It also addresses the accountability of stakeholders and calls for a reevaluation of the socioeconomic impacts of mining. The book points to the need for a shift toward more equitable and sustainable mining practices that prioritize the well-being of Indigenous communities and the inclusion of Indigenous perspectives in research and policy-making to foster transformative and lasting change.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.275 | 0.119 |
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".