MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6980477515

Centering Inuit Worldviews and Concerns for Their Communities, Environment and Future Generations in Relation to the NIRB Public Hearing Assessment Process of the Mary River Iron Ore Mine Phase II Proposal

2024· dissertation· en· W6980477515 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueQSpace (Queen's University Library) · 2024
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistory of Science and Natural History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousThematic analysisEnvironmental impact assessmentProcess (computing)Phase (matter)Public participationPublic involvementRelation (database)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An impact assessment process that is transparent and equitably accessible to all impacted rights-holders and stakeholders is necessary to facilitate effective and fair decision-making regarding the use, management and conservation of land, water, and resources. As of August 2024, the Mary River Iron Ore (MRIO) mine Phase II Expansion Proposal is the longest and most extensive assessment in the Nunavut Impact Review Board’s (NIRB) history. Despite a systematic, rigorous, evidenced-based and public assessment process, various factors prevented the centering of Inuit worldviews throughout the 26-days of in-person/video and teleconference NIRB public hearing process. Examining the MRIO Phase II Expansion Proposal, the purpose of this project is to understand the factors that contribute or restrict a multi-stakeholder public hearing process that equitably values Inuit and Western worldviews. This study characterizes the relationship and power dynamics between the proposal proponent, Baffinland, and Inuit, who historically have been marginalized throughout decision-making processes. Using the Public Hearing Transcripts pertaining to the proposal, I analyze the content of all participating Inuit and non-Inuit that support Inuit communities or organizations to conduct an extensive thematic analysis that reveals the enabling and restricting conditions. I apply a combination of Indigenous and qualitative methodologies to critically understand the complexity of the topic from an Inuit perspective. The following seven (7) themes were developed in the study: attendance, oral communication and style, concept of time and space, Inuit knowledge, hearing structure, transparency, and social fabric of Inuit. These themes yielded thirteen (13) restricting and eighteen (18) enabling conditions. The outweighing of restricting conditions provides a positive outlook on the possibilities of further improving the public hearing process. However, a transformation of the NIRB assessment process may be required to change the restricting conditions identified in this study and achieve the balancing of Inuit and Western perspectives in the public hearing process of a mining project. A series of recommendations are provided to address restricting conditions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.899
Threshold uncertainty score0.200

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0250.016
Scholarly communication0.0100.005
Open science0.0020.008
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQSpace (Queen's University Library)→Same topicHistory of Science and Natural History→French-language works237,207→