MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412757739 · doi:10.1177/0739456x251357251

Municipal-Indigenous Collaboration in Canadian Climate Action Plans

2025· article· en· W4412757739 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lila Asher, Sarah Cooper

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Planning Education and Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of Winnipeg
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousAction (physics)Environmental planningClimate justiceClimate changePolitical scienceGeographyEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental scienceEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As climate policy develops a stronger focus on resilience, governments must ensure that communities facing oppression are not left vulnerable. Working with Indigenous Nations in ways that uphold their self-determination is key to climate action. This study examines the extent to which Canadian municipalities with populations over twenty-thousand people consider Indigenous rights in climate planning, based on a document analysis of their climate plans. While nearly half mention Indigenous Peoples, there is little evidence of working relationships in most cases. Collaborating on tangible projects and building governance relationships that respect Indigenous self-determination will help municipal climate planners advance climate resilience.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.636
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.125
GPT teacher head0.574
Teacher spread0.448 · 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.

Study designObservational
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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Planning Education and ResearchSame topicIndigenous Studies and EcologyFrench-language works237,207