The Limitations and Transformative Potential of Indigenous‐Led Environmental Impact Assessments in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article examines the transformative potential of ILIA (Indigenous‐led Impact Assessment) to support Indigenous self‐determination and protect against further erosion of Indigenous rights caused by cumulative impacts. We consider the transformative potential of ILIAs to be two‐fold. First, despite variations in form, approach and strategy across Nations, all ILIA processes share a core principle—inclusion of decision‐making authority for affected Nations. Therefore, ILIAs have the potential to restore a degree of Indigenous Nations' governance authority over their territories. Second, ILIAs have the potential to transform relationships between Indigenous Nations, settler‐state governments and industrial project proponents, by offering a framework for shared and respectful decision‐making that takes Indigenous self‐determination and knowledge seriously. ILIA frameworks that include, respect and value both Indigenous and settler‐Canadian knowledge and decision‐making authority offer opportunities to learn and assess impacts from multiple perspectives and provide pathways for mutually beneficial partnerships.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".