Aboriginal Consultation for the Ontario Mining Act Modernization Process: Varying Perceptive on Whether the Consultation Process Works
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Internationally, there is a trend for marginalized people to not be involved in natural resource management decision making that directly or indirectly affects them. This is the case for a majority of indigenous people around the world. Despite good intentions and efforts to include indigenous people through many different tools, including international declarations, national laws and policies, the resounding reality is that most are not involved in a meaningful manner (Baker and McLelland 2003 ; Bowie \n2008; Sinclair and Diduck 2005; Whiteman and Mamen 2002). Nor do they have the capacity to challenge the status quo. The literature indicates many reasons and benefits to involve the public in decision making, such as strengthening of democracy and benefits of pluralism. Notwithstanding, the literature reveals that failed public involvement is the norm.
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 | 0.030 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.047 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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".