Expectations for meaningful free, prior, and informed consent: an exploration by the Little Salmon/Carmacks First Nation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Indigenous self-determination plays an increasingly prominent role in lands and resources development decisions. One way of operationalizing self-determination is through the realization of free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) for development impacting Indigenous Peoples and their lands, as recognized in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous peoples (UNDRIP). In the Yukon, Canada, where some consent and consent-like rights are held by First Nations, few First Nations have formally articulated their expectations for the meaningful expression of their consent. This paper begins to address this gap based on a case study by the Little Salmon/Carmacks First Nation (LS/CFN), a self-governing, Northern Tutchone Yukon First Nation located proximate to past, present, and potentially future mineral development. Though LS/CFN's expectations of FPIC are not formalized today, this exploratory research presents that LS/CFN participants expect: early engagement; to be fully informed; space for self-defined internal processes; ongoing engagement with proponents and the Crown; mitigation of resource barriers; enforceability of commitments; contextually relevant processes; appropriate representation; agreed upon definitions of terminology; mitigation of power imbalances; and mutual agreement on the consent process itself. More broadly this article makes a case for a covenantal, rather than a solely contractual, approach to make FPIC meaningful.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".