Study of the energy justice and reconciliation potential of the Manitoba Affordable Energy Plan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As Manitoba continues to work towards reconciliation with its Indigenous communities, who continue to deal with endemic issues such as poverty, inequality, poorer health outcomes and discrimination driven by Canada’s colonial legacy. Among the reconciliation efforts underway by the provincial government and energy supplier is a plan to build 600MW of Indigenous-owned wind energy. This project is meant to contribute to economic reconciliation. This study aims to investigate the effectiveness of economic reconciliation by employing a conceptual framework of energy justice. The conceptual framework will utilise the eight concepts critical to delivering on energy justice. These concepts would be applied in the case study analysis from Canada and Alaska, inspired by Indigenous methodologies. This enables the assessment of how effectively the provincial plan will deliver economic reconciliation and energy justice. By identifying gaps, recommendations can be made based on successful practices found during the case study analysis. Through the analysis, it would become clear that the provincial plan to build Indigenous owned wind energy would deliver on economic reconciliation. Demonstrating that the project design involves signing onto power purchasing agreements early on and mandating majority Indigenous ownership. However, it fails to be adequately accessible for the Northern First Nations communities, which have been the most affected by the historical development of the provincial energy grid. The project should address these challenges by removing geographic restrictions, allowing small-scale projects and providing loans directly to communities and organisations.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".