Indigeneity and Sovereignty in Canada's Far North: The Arctic and Inuit Sovereignty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.030 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".