Moving on from the Consultation Model to the Consent Model in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The legal duty to consult in Canada is changing, as, despite this duty, Indigenous Peoples feel their ability to protect their resources in decision-making processes remains constrained. Currently, Indigenous Peoples are considered equivalent stakeholders when rather, they are self-determining Nations. Serious negative consequences result when meaningful consultation is not practiced. The consent model can aid in achieving reconciliation as a country, but challenges must be overcome. This paper discusses the differences between consultation and consent as understood from the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the findings of a small-scale literature review, and personal communications with subject matter experts. It presents the impacts that the legal duty to consult has on Indigenous Peoples in Canada and advocates for the consent model. Developing the consultation skills of engineering students will improve future outcomes for Indigenous communities and the engineering profession; therefore, this topic is important for engineering educators.
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 | 0.045 | 0.070 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".