MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1982758198 · doi:10.1215/00382876-1162480

Indigeneity and Sovereignty in Canada's Far North: The Arctic and Inuit Sovereignty

2011· article· en· W1982758198 on OpenAlexaffabout
Gordon Christie

Bibliographic record

VenueSouth Atlantic Quarterly · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArctic and Russian Policy Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSovereigntyLegitimacyNarrativeMeaning (existential)ArcticPower (physics)State (computer science)Environmental ethicsPolitical scienceSociologyPolitical economyGeographyLawEpistemologyPoliticsEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As the Arctic “opens up” to exploration and economic development, a new stage in colonization looms. This essay builds toward a vision of Arctic nation-states meeting with the Inuit to work out how they might together come to an understanding of how decisions about the future of the Arctic may be appropriately made. The Inuit are currently actively resisting the new wave of colonization within a framework built on the bedrock of nation-state sovereignty. The notion of “sovereignty” serves as a keystone in a system of controlling narratives, functioning to generate and police ways of thinking about decision-making processes, a notion deriving much of its power from its being interwoven with notions of legitimacy and “right.” This concept functions at a deep level, not only upholding decision-making processes but going into the very structuring of meaning, thereby defining ranges of possible thought and action. The central thesis in this work is that the Inuit, occupying a vantage point defined by their Indigeneity (marked by the power they possess to build and maintain their own worlds of meaning through and about themselves, and their relationship to the world around), can advance a second form of resistance, challenging the new wave of colonization by placing their “stories” directly against those built around nation-state sovereignty.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.189
Threshold uncertainty score0.489

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSouth Atlantic QuarterlySame topicArctic and Russian Policy StudiesFrench-language works237,207