MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1933145221 · doi:10.7202/1025712ar

De Rankin Inlet à Raglan, le développement minier et les communautés inuit

2014· article· fr· W1933145221 on OpenAlex
Thierry Rodon, Francis Lévesque, Jonathan Blais

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

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".

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueÉtudes/Inuit/Studies · 2014
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldEngineering
TopicMining and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesEthnologyGeographyHistoryArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dans cet article, nous nous demandons si les communautés inuit canadiennes sont mieux outillées qu’elles ne l’étaient il y a un demi-siècle pour bénéficier du développement minier qui survient sur leur territoire. Après un bilan des relations qu’ont entretenues les Inuit avec l’industrie minière dans l’Inuit Nunangat entre 1957 et le début des années 2000, nous présentons les résultats d’une enquête menée dans les communautés de Salluit et Kangiqsujuaq au Nunavik en automne 2012 au sujet des impacts sociaux de la mine Raglan. Cette discussion nous permet de souligner qu’il reste beaucoup de travail à faire pour mieux comprendre les effets du développement minier sur les communautés inuit.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.302
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.240 · 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