MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1600351202 · doi:10.3138/jcs.43.2.109

Institutional Boundaries and Regionalism: Social, Economic, and Political Regions in the Canadian Arctic

2009· article· en· W1600351202 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Ailsa Henderson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Canadian Studies · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRegionalism (politics)ArcticPoliticsGeographyThe arcticPolitical scienceEconomic geographyEthnologySociologyEcologyLawOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When Nunavut was created in 1999 it was both the product of regionalism and an agent of further regional change within the Eastern Arctic. This essay explores what impact, if any, the new territory has had on two aspects of regionalism. First, it determines whether Nunavut allows us to distinguish among the predominantly Inuit communities in the Eastern Arctic and, if so, whether the new territory has improved material living conditions among Nunavut communities greater than in other Eastern Arctic communities. Second, the article explores regionalism within the new territory, exploring whether we can see regional variations both in the potential cultural benefits of the region and in levels of support for the territory. The article explains that while we do not see significant regional differences across the Eastern Arctic, we can see meaningful differences within the new territory, differences that may be attributed, in part, to the role of particular communities in the administration of public affairs in Nunavut.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.404

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0150.020
Scholarly communication0.0080.002
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.090
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.295 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Canadian StudiesSame topicIndigenous Studies and EcologyFrench-language works237,207