‘It's like, we are thankful. But in the other way…they are just killing us too’: Community members’ perspectives of the extractives industry’s funding of recreational and cultural programmes in Fort McKay, Alberta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The growing role of the extractives industry in providing funding for recreational and cultural programmes in exchange for access to Indigenous lands raises some important questions about the impact this has on local community members. Informed by tenets of postcolonial theory and a community-based participatory research methodology, we worked with individuals in a small Indigenous community, Fort McKay, Alberta, Canada, to learn about their perspectives of the role of industry in funding their recreational and cultural programs. Our findings revealed that while many were grateful for this funding, they also felt that industry had a responsibility to fund these programs to offset the negative impacts industry had on their traditional territories. Further, they felt that the provision of these programs does not fully address the loss of access to traditional cultural practices. While proponents of the extractives industry promote funding as a way to increase Indigenous self-determination, our findings show that increased self-determination through such arrangements is limited.
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".