Iglutaasaavut (Our New Homes): Neither “New” nor “Ours”: <i>Housing Challenges of the Nunavut Territorial Government</i>
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Government of Nunavut inherited from the Government of the Northwest Territories a long-standing problem affecting nearly every Inuk in the newly minted territory. The housing crisis in the new territory has a long history, dating back to the mid-1950s when Inuit in Frobisher Bay (Iqaluit) were first provided with wood-frame housing. A rapidly growing population, low incomes, the subsequent need for social housing, the cost of providing housing in a demanding physical environment, and ideologically driven biases in relation to housing as a market commodity are all factors that help explain the crisis inherited by the new administration. Serious problems of suitability, adequacy, and affordability confronted the Nunavut Housing Corporation, which is also facing a decline to zero over the next 30 years in Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation’s contribution to the existing social housing inventory. By August 2000, 1,100 families in Nunavut were waiting for some form of housing assistance. The demand for housing was projected to be 260 homes per year over the next 5-year period. Sixty percent of Nunavummiut live in public housing, 98% of whom are Inuit. This essay examines the problems that have confronted the Nunavut Housing Corporation—a stand-alone corporation—and looks at program and policy initiatives undertaken to address the situation, as called for by the Bathurst Mandate, tabled in October 1999, and establishing principles, goals, and objectives for the new government and the Nunavut Housing Corporation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it