Bibliographic record
Abstract
The development of equitable relationships and outcomes among Indigenous communities, resource development companies, and governments in Canada is slow and uneven. Protest and Partnership brings together expert contributors to ask what works—and what doesn’t—in these relationships. It explores what processes lead to greater involvement and control in decision-making by Indigenous Peoples and the establishment of mutually beneficial partnerships. \n \n Protest and Partnership presents case studies on a range of resource development sectors including oil and gas, renewable energy, mining, and forestry, drawn from regions across Canada. It presents a fine-grained analysis of institutions and processes, demonstrating how Indigenous communities work within and outside frameworks and processes established by governments and industry. It recognizes the persistent failure of Canadian governments to honour treaty rights and provide meaningful consultation and demonstrates how Indigenous groups, communities, and governments have engaged in self-determined resource development despite these ongoing failures. \n \n Offering broad lessons in the importance of co-management and co-governance, the autonomy of Indigenous Peoples, transparency and accountability, Indigenous economic security, and meaningful collaboration and engagement, Protest and Partnership is a thorough and careful exploration of the current state of consultation and engagement on resource development with Indigenous communities in Canada.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.059 | 0.010 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".