Should we turn the tent? Inuit women and climate change
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most of the climate change literature for Arctic Canada in the social sciences has focused on men’s knowledge and experiences. Drawing on research from Qikiqtarjuaq and Clyde River, Nunavut, we explore Inuit women’s perspectives on recent environmental changes, many of which are often attributed to climate change by Inuit or others. We divide issues resulting from environmental change into primary and secondary effects. Primary effects are changes in environmental features that affect, for example, hunting, fishing, and travelling. Secondary effects occur in the community as a result of environmental change. These include changes in the use and condition of country products like seal skins, and the psychological and social impact of environmental changes, such as going out on the land less often due to fear of dangerous conditions. We also offer a preliminary discussion on women’s role in responses to climate change, through their often dominant economic and political roles in their communities, the territory, and various wider global governance fora. Our research indicates that gender helps shape Inuit knowledge of environmental change, as well as social responses to perceptions of change. By examining women’s perceptions of environmental change, we draw attention to the social aspects and also highlight how women can contribute to adaptation, not only to physical changes but also to the resulting social changes.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.014 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".