MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4417339820 · doi:10.22584/nr58.2025.001

Editorial: Number 58

2025· article· W4417339820 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ken Coates

Notice bibliographique

RevueThe Northern Review · 2025
Typearticle
Langue
DomaineEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
ThématiqueDiverse Scientific and Economic Studies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésnon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Northern political affairs are, to put it mildly, in “transition.” Political turnover continues in the Territorial North. American President Donald Trump continues his chaotic ways, most recently (November 2025) through the release of the “America First” national security strategy that raises serious questions about Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic. Russian adventurism in the Far North remains a looming threat. Climate change is having an outsized impact across the region. It is not all worrisome. Indigenous re-empowerment and self-determination across the Circumpolar North continues to broaden, along with expansions in governance. There are significant commercial successes for northern Indigenous economic development corporations (and Alaska Native Corporations). The establishment of First Nations education and health authorities and Indigenous-led wildlife management regimes in Canada, among other initiatives, promise a different and exciting future in the North. For the Northern Review, it has been a distinct privilege to be a small part of the Arctic futures re-imagining process, helping to challenge the status quo. We encourage, in a variety of transnational and multidisciplinary perspectives, wide-ranging and thought-provoking analysis and commentary on northern issues. While we make a concerted effort to tap the exceptional knowledge and expertise of people living and working in the North, we also welcome contributions from scholars and professionals currently based elsewhere. We all share a concern for the just, inclusive, and creative evolution of the Arctic. Our 58th volume continues in this vein. We start by celebrating the life and professional contributions of Mary Ehrlander, a superb Alaskan scholar and since 2013 a valued member of our editorial board, who sadly passed away earlier this year. Mary had also published articles in the journal in 2007 and 2010, with fascinating comparative research exploring the history of alcohol in the Circumpolar North. Mary will be missed by many, for reasons that her University of Alaska Fairbanks colleague Brandon Boylan makes very clear. We appreciated her kind and insightful contributions, and we’re grateful that she connected us with Brandon, who has now joined the Northern Review as a senior editor. We are already finding his expertise and measured advice very helpful. There is much to learn from and share with our Alaskan neighbours and friends, and we are glad to continue this valuable collaboration across our international border. The research papers in this volume cast a broad net over northern issues, from legends in the South Nahanni River Valley and the role that stories can play in colonization, to the raging current debate about critical minerals and the complexities of our relationship with them. Another contribution explores the challenges of data collection in northern communities, and contemplates how the evidence and methodologies used can skew policy making. These are all, in markedly different ways, issues of wide concern and importance across the North. The Northern Review continues to invite commentaries on Indigenous research frameworks and academic scholarship. A research perspective paper explores one of these frameworks and how it was applied in a project in Old Crow, Yukon, offering guidance for what is still sometimes seen as an uneasy intersection of knowledge systems. A unique reflection paper also brings an important and valuable perspective, making the case for researchers and practitioners to bring their heart to conservation science, as well as the numbers. Finally, a thoughtful commentary on the urgent push to develop northern Ontario resources argues for the importance of continuing baseline studies to protect scientific integrity, health, and Indigenous self-determination. This paper also speaks to themes of pan-northern significance. Constructive provocation remains a hallmark of the many and varied contributions to the Northern Review. We look forward to welcoming ever more perspectives from researchers and thinkers, North and South, as we ponder the grand and important issues of our time. If northern policy is to change—and it is, and will continue to shift in coming years—it is vital that we have informed, insightful, and creative commentary on best paths forward for the Peoples of the North.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,007
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,035
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Éditorial · Signal consensuel: Éditorial
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,121
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,405

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0070,035
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0030,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0040,002
Bibliométrie0,0050,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0040,002
Communication savante0,0090,003
Science ouverte0,0040,003
Intégrité de la recherche0,0130,013
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,1210,076

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,029
Tête enseignante GPT0,249
Écart entre enseignants0,220 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreÉditorial

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2025
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentnon

Explorer davantage

Même revueThe Northern Review→Même sujetDiverse Scientific and Economic Studies→Travaux en français237 207→