MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7029458350

Integrating Indigenous perspectives for a just energy transition of Saskatchewan

2024· other· en· W7029458350 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueLund University Publications Student Papers (Lund University) · 2024
Typeother
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLibraries and Information Services
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousRenewable energySustainabilityDiversification (marketing strategy)ElectricityEnergy transitionEnergy policy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canada pledged to achieve net zero by 2050 and important efforts revolving around the energy transition of electricity generation systems toward renewables sources are being carried. Currently, most renewable systems developed are occurring on Indigenous communities’ lands for various reasons. Climatic conditions are suitable for solar and wind-based solutions, space is available, and this trend constitutes an opportunity for the economic development and diversification of Indigenous communities.However, several scholars argue that renewable electricity production projects do not integrate sufficiently Indigenous perspectives as Indigenous communities are still more considered stakeholders that must be consulted rather than partners involved in decision making. According to energy justice scholars, this results in the occultation of several environmental and cultural impacts while the integration of Indigenous views could lead to higher sustainability thanks to higher considerations for nature and benefits for the community. These researchers question the sustainability of an energy transition maintaining Indigenous communities in a situation of dependency and increasing inequalities, instead of becoming participants to their own electric systems, as a crucial step towards the respect of their right to self-determination.This thesis explores the impacts of provincial policies on shaping the conditions of the dialogue among actors involved in renewable electricity generation projects. Using the concepts of “shared visions” and “collaboration” developed by Transition Management scholars, this paper interrogates the challenges and success of the different provinces in integrating Indigenous communities as partners. A comparative study, based on interviews and a review of documents made by provincial governments and energy developers, has been carried to assess how Saskatchewan, a province located in the center south of Canada, could improve its existing supportive mechanisms toward a better integration of Indigenous perspectives in renewable electricity generation projects.This thesis demonstrates that important efforts have been carried by developmental agencies, provincial governments, and advocacy groups across Canada, including Saskatchewan, to advance Indigenous inclusion in renewable energy projects. They have contributed to change stakeholders’ perceptions on Indigenous communities which are increasingly considered. Moreover, Indigenous capacities to get involved in projects have largerly improved in the recent years thanks to provincial and federal programs.Nevertheless, in Sasaktchewan, actors’ sensitivity to Indigenous perspectives is still limited to experts and frontrunners. Compared to northern provinces and British Columbia, collaboration is still at its early stages and most times Indigenous communities must acquire a majority shares in projects to be integrated in decision making. The idea of a shared vision on sustainability is still far along the road and a stronger political stance promoting Indigenous involvement into renewable electricity projects is needed. In Saskatchewan compared to other provinces, indigenous communities face a stronger lack of interests and trust from energy developers to engage in partnerships due to lower public policies incentives. While provincial characteristics play a crucial role in defining political landscapes and interventionism possibilities, it seems that Saskatchewan could implement more ambitious mechanisms to promote shared sustainability visions and collaboration in renewable electricity projects.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.384

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0150.010
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.189 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLund University Publications Student Papers (Lund University)Same topicLibraries and Information ServicesFrench-language works237,207