Canada, the Arctic, and Post-National Identity in the Circumpolar World
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Issues affecting the Arctic today-including climate change, natural resource development, and contending claims about countries' boundaries and borders-raise the opportunity to think about Canada's Arctic identity. What ideas and values form Canada's Arctic identity and how does this identity connect with policy? Canada's identity or sense of self at home and abroad affects how its citizens and policy-makers think about the Arctic, thinking which can shape Arctic policy. In turn, policy can reaffirm or challenge identity. This article explores the complex interplay between Canada's Arctic identities and Arctic policy. It begins by explaining how Canada's Arctic resource and sovereignty claims are part of the historic importance of the Arctic in producing Canadian national identity. In contrast, Canada's role in developing the Arctic Council, its relationships with circumpolar organizations, and its participation in the International Polar Year relate to a more recent emphasis on developing a circumpolar, post-national identity, which is based on values, ideas, and interests Canada shares with other Arctic countries and actors. These two identities, and the policy options and directions that emerge from them, are in tension. The article suggests how they may converge into a uniquely Canadian circumpolar identity by pursuing a multi-level identity framework, in which post-national values and institutions compensate for the limitations of the national (and vice-versa). In doing so, it is argued that Canada would be able to take on a greater leadership role in addressing both pressing challenges and new opportunities in the Arctic today
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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".