Municipal-Indigenous collaboration in climate planning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Climate policy offers an ideal site to build collaborative governance relationships between Canadian municipalities and Indigenous peoples because climate action and decolonization both require a fundamental reworking of settler governance systems. However, few municipal climate action plans show evidence of relationships with Indigenous peoples. This research examines references to Indigenous peoples in published climate action plans from Canadian municipalities of over 20,000 people and urban regional governments. Through a mixed-methods content analysis covering the 139 municipalities and regions with climate action plans, this study finds that only half (69) make any reference to Indigenous peoples, and only about one in five (30) have ongoing working relationships. In most of these 30 ongoing relationships, Indigenous contributions to municipal climate plans are confined to certain topics or defined by engagement processes that ask for input without recognizing Indigenous authority. Truly addressing climate change requires increasing resilience for all people, which necessitates respect for Indigenous self-determination. The goal of this research is to serve as a jumping-off point for the establishment of decolonial partnerships between municipalities and Indigenous peoples.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".