Contested Consultations in the Extractive Industries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years international organisations, governments and companies around the world have dramatically reformed the regime that governs consultations with community stakeholders about proposed extractive projects. However, the characteristics of this consultation regime are often contested, with diverse stakeholders seeking to defend their interests by drawing on different authoritative interpretations of the rules, norms and decision-making procedures that govern stakeholder consultation. Contestation over the meaning, governance and practice of stakeholder consultation is the central thread that ties this book together. Within this overarching concern, the volume takes a global and comparative perspective that examines the complexity of these intersecting and overlapping consultation requirements, with a particular focus on Indigenous Peoples, using cases from the Global North and Global South, including Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, The Central African Republic, The Democratic Republic of Congo, Iceland, Ghana, Greenland, Guyana, Norway, and Peru. The book highlights the tensions associated with the application of this contested regime and identifies possible solutions from best practices around the world. From a theoretical perspective the book unpacks the maze of overlapping consultation requirements and practices that highlights the normative disagreements between key stakeholders and the overlapping rules and procedures that govern the implementation of consultation. A unique contribution of this collection is the commentary from practitioners, who reflect on the same issues addressed by the academic contributors, but based on their own vast practical experience.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".