The Role of Environmental NGOs in Indigenous Land and Sea Management in Atlantic Canada and Nunatsiavut. Reflections on a three month exchange with Oceans North in Halifax, Canada’
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Environmental NGO’s (ENGOs) are increasingly seeking to work with Indigenous groups across Canada. This follows roughly three decades of successful land claims, the establishment of new Indigenous governments, such as Nunatsiavut in Labrador, and greater recognition of First Nation groups following legal action to assert treaty rights. ENGOs are keen to work with these Indigenous entities to push for improved environmental management and responses to climate change, and in some cases, promote political action. The Government of Canada has also recently established an Indigenous Protected Conservation Areas (IPCA) program modelled on Australia’s Indigenous Protected Areas. The presentation discusses challenges arising in the development of Oceans North’s Indigenous Engagement Strategy for First Nations groups in Atlantic Canada, and reflects on Oceans North’s work to promote IPCAs as part of Imappivut, a plan to manage and protect Inuit interests in the coastal and marine areas of Nunatsiavut, Labrador.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.033 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".