Governance in Nunavut: Capacity vs. Culture?
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
A key objective of Inuit political leaders in pushing for the creation of a Nunavut Territory was the establishment of a governance regime that would not only be numerically controlled by Inuit, but would also in a real sense be an Inuit government. Among other things, this would entail developing institutions and processes congruent with Inuit culture and values, and ensuring that the new regime did not “duplicate Yellowknife”—that is, simply replicate the structures, processes, and attitudes that characterized the Government of the Northwest Territories prior to division. This essay assesses the governance regime in Nunavut against these objectives. Specific attention will be devoted to the basic structure and operation of the Government of Nunavut, including its decentralization initiative and its efforts to achieve high rates of Inuit participation in the public service; the political-governmental role of Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, the Inuit land-claim organization; the activities of the co-management and regulatory boards established under the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement; and municipal government.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it