MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W853471216

Cultural Protection, Empowerment and Land Use Planning: Identification of Values in Support of Fort Albany First Nation, Ontario, Canada, Community Based Land Use Planning

2014· article· en· W853471216 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian journal of native studies · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubsistence agriculturePolitical scienceGeographyIndigenousEthnologyContext (archaeology)SociologyArchaeologyEcology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AbstractMembers of the Fort Albany First Nation, an Indigenous community in the far north of Ontario, Canada, recently started work on a community-based land use plan for their traditional territories. Through community partnership research with Fort Albany, we explored substantive and procedural values in support of community-based planning. Results indicate that the community desires a plan that works toward cultural preservation and empowerment through conservation of resources that support subsistence activities, and provides community benefits from future development. Implications are discussed in the context of the currently evolving Province of Ontario's far north land use planning process.ResumeLes membres de la Premiere Nation de Fort Albany, une communaute autochtone du nord de l'Ontario, ont recemment entrepris des travaux collectifs sur la gestion de leurs terres ancestrales.Au moyen de recherches aupres de la communaute de Fort Albany nous avons examine des valeurs de substance et de procedure favorisant la planification communautaire. Les resultats indiquent que la communaute desire un plan ayant pour but la conservation de la culture locale et la mise en valeur des ressources servant de bases aux activites individuelles, et ou la communaute profitera de travaux ulterieurs. On discute de ce que cela implique dans le contexte de la politique (fluctuante) ontarienne actuelle de processus de planification de mise en valeur des terres du nordIntroductionThe western James Bay region of northern Ontario, part of the Mushkegowuk Territory, is experiencing significant development pressure in the resource sector. Ontario Power Generation is considering further hydro-electric development on the Moose and Albany Rivers (Forum on Rights to Water, 2008), and mine development and exploration is increasing (Whitelaw et al., 2008; Koven, 2007; Larmour, 2007). At issue is the ability of First Nations (FNs) of the Mushkegowuk Territory to participate in and benefit from the resource development decisions that affect their traditional homeland territories.First Nation land use planning is emerging as a potential approach to inform resource development across Canada's north. A number of plans exist and many are under development (Schuk, 2010). The First Nations of the western James Bay (Moose Factory, Fort Albany, Kashechewan and Attawapiskat) are represented politically at the regional level by Mushkegowuk Council and at the supra-regional level (northern Ontario) by Nishnawbe-Aski Nation (NAN). Both political organizations are actively involved with regional land use planning in efforts to better manage impending resource extraction projects in the region (Mushkegowuk Council, 2011; Nishnawbe Aski Nation, 2011). Fort Albany First Nation (FAFN) is a remote community located near the mouth of the Albany River accessible only by air transportation year-round, barge during the ice-free season, and by ice road during the winter season (Figure 1).The FAFN Chief and Council approached our research team requesting research support for their community-based land use planning process. Our research explored FAFN community members' values related to the land and its management, both substantive and procedural. Substantive values are elements of the FAFN's natural and human environment deemed significant by the community for their well being and/or lifestyle, and that a land use plan should focus on protecting, enhancing, or managing. Substantive values are referred to in the environmental assessment literature as valued ecosystem components (VECs). Valued ecosystem components are defined as having scientific, social, cultural, economic, historical, archaeological or aesthetic importance and may be determined on the basis of cultural ideas or scientific concern (Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, 2006). Procedural values and issues focus on elements pertinent to the planning process itself, such as objectives, scope (the extent of the plan) and methods (how planning takes place). …

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.406
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.235 · 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