MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403597458 · doi:10.5070/l542264379

The Fight Against Graphite: What Tribal Opposition to a Mine in Alaska Teaches Us about the Importance and Limitations of Consultation in the Green Transition

2024· article· en· W4403597458 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Annika Krafcik

Bibliographic record

VenueUCLA Journal of Environmental Law and Policy · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOpposition (politics)Political scienceEnvironmental planningEnvironmental ethicsLawEnvironmental sciencePoliticsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Twelve years ago, a Canadian mining company started drilling for graphite in the Kigluaik Mountains. The Native Villages of Mary’s Igloo, Brevig Mission, and Teller were never notified of the start of exploration, despite their proximity to the proposed mine site and the significance of the Kigluaiks in their culture and creation story. Adding insult to injury, in July 2023, the Department of Defense (DoD) granted Graphite One $37.5 million dollars to expedite the feasibility study for this mine. To this day, the DoD has not consulted with the Tribes regarding the Graphite One mine. The DoD wants to expedite the project because there is currently no domestic manufacturing of graphite in North America, and graphite is an essential ingredient for both renewable energy technologies and weapons manufacturing. While local Tribes oppose the mine, many Tribal members feel that mine development is inevitable, especially given that the Graphite One mine is on State land (and thus subject to fewer environmental and Tribal consultation requirements) and the project has the federal government’s blessing. This Comment pushes back against that feeling of inevitability by identifying existing tools within federal environmental and federal Indian law that Tribes affected by mining projects can wield to mandate consultation and participation in mine-related decision-making. Using Tribal opposition to the Graphite One mine as an example, this Comment explores actions Tribes have already taken and further steps Tribes could take to protect their homelands and subsistence resources from mining projects. As the Green Transition intensifies the need for minerals used in renewable energy technologies, Tribal consultation and participation in mine-related decision-making grows increasingly important. Without meaningful consultation with Tribes, the Green Transition will inevitably follow in the footsteps of the fossil fuel past it seeks to replace: extracting resources from Indigenous lands and threatening subsistence lifestyles. This Comment imagines a just transition where Indigenous ways of life are honored and uplifted.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.670
Threshold uncertainty score0.803

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.290 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUCLA Journal of Environmental Law and PolicySame topicIndigenous Studies and EcologyFrench-language works237,207