MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7015465919

Sustainability and unsustainable practices : Exploring the energy transitions' implications on human rights

2025· article· en· W7015465919 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueKTH Publication Database DiVA (KTH Royal Institute of Technology) · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMining and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousSustainabilityHuman rightsIndigenous rightsSustainable developmentInclusion (mineral)Traditional knowledgeSocial sustainability
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the light of sustainable development, dilemmas can occur where the three dimensions of sustainability, the social, ecological and economical, come into conflict. This thesis explores the tension between social and ecological sustainability, specifically regarding Indigenous rights being threatened by renewable energy extraction projects. These projects aim for a low-carbon economy and a fossil-free future which would support ecological sustainability. However, the mining developments for these projects often operate on Indigenous traditional lands where the Indigenous communities have their cultural and spiritual identities. Through a Human Rights-Based Approach and just transition theory, this thesis examines how power asymmetries, lack of consultation and limited participation in decision-making processes threaten Indigenous First Nations rights. The material is examined through a content analysis and consists of governmental documents and NGO reports from MiningWatch Canada. The content analysis is conducted using a coding scheme in which the terms ´sustainable development´, ´sustainability´, ´human rights´, ´environmental´ and ´culture´ are extracted and analysed. Their implicit or explicit use, or their absence is highlighted to evaluate the extent to which sustainability and Indigenous rights are prioritized in the chosen governmental documents and NGO reports. The study concludes that although Indigenous peoples and rights are mentioned in both governmental documents and NGO reports, their inclusion in decision-making processes is often underwhelming. Mining developments continue to pose significant threats to First Nations communities, even though there are mechanisms intended to protect them, such as Environmental Assessments and Impact Benefit Agreements. First Nations communities are often excluded from decision-making processes and there is a lack of free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) in mining developments.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.036
Scholarly communication0.0080.013
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKTH Publication Database DiVA (KTH Royal Institute of Technology)→Same topicMining and Resource Management→French-language works237,207→