Enabling Indigenous-centred decision-making for a just energy transition? Lessons from community consultation and consent in the circumpolar Arctic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Governance and decision-making that uphold the rights, interests, knowledges, and values of Indigenous peoples and land-connected communities are increasingly recognised as critical components of a just energy transition. Despite the unprecedented inclusion of Indigenous peoples in resource governance, it is unclear how community consultation and consent can effectively support Indigenous-centred decision-making. In this paper, we provide an integrative and case review of community experiences with consultation and consent across the Arctic and sub-Arctic region which along with other ‘resource geographies’ are increasingly affected by transition minerals mining and renewable energy infrastructure. Key themes identified in the review include: (1) limitations of state- and company-led community consultation and consent; (2) practices of Indigenous-centred (Indigenous-led, Indigenous-benefiting and Indigenous-informed) decision-making; and (3) barriers to Indigenous-centred decision-making. Focusing on the circumpolar north, this paper contributes to broadening the discussion on just energy transitions for Indigenous peoples. Implications for scholarship and practice are discussed, reflecting on community consultation and consent in the current rush to supply minerals and infrastructure for the global energy transition. • Just transitions require upholding the rights, interests, knowledge and values of Indigenous and land-connected communities • Integrative and case study reviews of community experiences with consultation and consent in the Arctic and sub-Arctic • Limits to state- and corporate-led consultation and consent highlight the importance of Indigenous-centred approaches • Differentiates Indigenous-led from Indigenous-benefiting and Indigenous-informed approaches • Discusses barriers to Indigenous-centred approaches to consultation and consent and broader implications
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 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 | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.030 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".