Indigenous Peoples’ Perspectives on Participation in Mining The Case of James Bay Cree First Nation in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mining exploration and production are rapidly increasing in remote regions of the world where traditionally large scale mining has not taken place such as in the North of Quebec in Canada. In these remote areas, mining companies frequently take over lands and territories of Indigenous Peoples disrupting their traditional livelihoods. Indigenous Peoples have specific rights to land and resources, rights to free prior informed consent as well as participation in decision making. A number of CSR initiatives have been taken by mining companies to shift towards responsible business and participation of Indigenous communities in decision making. Yet the implementation of meaningful approaches to participation is not common or in many cases not properly applied in practice. Furthermore although Aborginal particpation is highly promoted in the business industry little is known how Indigenous communities perceive proper conditions for participation and FPIC process. This study examines the perspectives of James Bay Cree First Nations in the North of Québec on the participation process with Troilus mine project and the implementation and implications of the Troilus agreement on the Cree. Additionaly the study scrutinizes the internal participation and FPIC process in two Cree communities and the impacts of mining on the Cree First Nation. Key words: Indigenous Peoples, mining, livelihood, human rights, participation, FPIC, Cree First Nation, CSR, corporate Aboriginal agreement, development impacts, 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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".