“Man Camps”: Temporary Housing Facilities or Sites of Permanent Devastation? The Cases of British Columbia, Manitoba, and Nunavut
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Violence, harassment, and sexual abuse against Indigenous women, girls, and Two-Spirit people is an issue that currently plagues our nation. There is a disproportionately high number of incidents occurring at Canadian resource extraction sites, both on “work camps,” colloquially referred to as “man camps,” and within nearby communities. While arguably the most salient consideration in the assessment process, it often does not receive the attention it requires. Consequently, this issue not only adds to the wider systemic imbalances that reproduce racist, sexist, and colonial patterns, but it further contributes to the Murdered and Missing Indigenous Women and Girls (MMIWG) national tragedy. This dynamic is a result of the beginning of the settler colonial period and the power imbalances that were first established by primarily white European men. Adopting a critical race feminist approach and applying an intersectional lens to the matter reveals a complex picture of the lived experiences of Indigenous women, girls, and Two-Spirit people and how they experience harm due to their multifaceted identities. The cases of British Columbia, Manitoba, and Nunavut are examined and based on the analysis, this paper examines necessary recommendations for an ethical way forward that prioritizes Indigenous human rights, security, and safety before environmental impacts.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".