Reclaiming homeland - An evaluation of traditional land use planning in oils sands mine closure and reclamation plans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a systematic review of traditional land use planning in mine closure and reclamation at seven oil sands mines operating in the traditional territory of Fort McKay First Nation, Alberta, Canada. Life of Mine Closure Plans lacked evidence that consultation and engagement with local Indigenous communities on mine closure and reclamation was guided by principles and actions towards truth and reconciliation. While all plans stated that traditional land use was one of the planned outcomes, there was limited evidence of planning for the renewal of cultural landscapes and relationships. A critical gap and opportunity for reclaiming Indigenous homelands is to align provincial mine closure and reclamation policy and law with national and international Indigenous rights law and policy. This is an essential step to sustain the community and culture of local Indigenous communities, like Fort McKay First Nation, who are interconnected with their traditional lands, waters, and practices. • First study to partially apply a ‘Two-Roads Approach’ methodology in mine closure and reclamation. • Insufficient evidence consultation was guided by truth & reconciliation principles and actions. • Limited evidence oil sands mines are planning for the renewal of Indigenous cultural landscapes. • Alberta law, policy must be revised with a broader description of cultural reclamation as mitigation. • Reclaiming Indigenous homelands requires participatory planning processes and full resourcing.
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 | 0.048 | 0.065 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".