Bibliographic record
Abstract
The global magnitude of changes occurring in the Arctic and different estimates of potential riches in the region have generated a diverse number of developments resulting in increased action among several states in asserting their claims in the region. This has prompted discourse by interested stakeholders over a variety of Arctic issues. Despite Canada’s persistence in defending its claims and geopolitical interests in the Arctic, there are still unresolved legal and political matters that question Canadian Arctic sovereignty. Policies undertaken by the Government of Canada to handle the security, sovereignty, and fundamental developments in the North that affect economic, social, political, and environmental settings raise the question of Northerners’ involvement and the role of subnational entities in the strengthening of Canada’s sovereignty in the Arctic. At the same time, existing discourse on Canada’s Arctic sovereignty also reveals various perceptions on sovereignty where Arctic Indigenous peoples, subnational units, and other Northerners are concerned. At the outset, this essay examines Northerners’ approaches to sovereignty. Further, by looking at the example of Nunavut, the territory populated by an Inuit majority, this essay explores its interests and the place of this jurisdiction in Canada’s Arctic sovereignty claim and Northern policies.
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 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.034 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".