MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1978835686 · doi:10.1163/157181108x332659

Canada's Experiment with Aboriginal Self-Determination in Nunavut: From Vision to Illusion

2008· article· en· W1978835686 on OpenAlexaffabout
André Légaré

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal on Minority and Group Rights · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArctic and Russian Policy Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVisionMandateGovernment (linguistics)Political scienceIllusionPublic administrationGeographySociologyLawAnthropologyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The paper presents a geographical and historical overview of the Territory Nunavut (Canada) established in 1999 and inhabited by a majority of Inuit People. The author outlines the process that led to the conclusion of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement and the current structure of the government of Nunavut, which can best be described as a form of Inuit self-government. Th e main objective of the paper consists in an overview and analysis of current socio-economic challenges faced by the government of Nunavut. Based on the visions of the Bathurst Mandate, the author attempts to assess the success of the ‘Nunavut Project’.The author concludes that because of Nunavut's weak economy and fi scal dependency on the central federal government of Canada, the numerous socio-economic challenges have not been resolved. The Nunavut experiment has not yet been proven a success. The prosperous vision, expressed through the Bathurst Mandate, of a viable Nunavut seems for now just an illusion.

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)0.004
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 score0.083
Threshold uncertainty score0.606

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0270.012
Scholarly communication0.0050.001
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.293 · 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

Citations38
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal on Minority and Group RightsSame topicArctic and Russian Policy StudiesFrench-language works237,207