Policies and practicalities of shipping in arctic waters: Inuit perspectives from Cape Dorset, Nunavut
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Under changing climatic conditions, political and economic interest in accessing arctic waters and shipping potential is increasing, bringing forward opportunities and challenges that need to be addressed. To explore the practical implications of this from Inuit perspectives, we undertook a community-based case study in Cape Dorset, Nunavut, conducting 20 interviews between 2008 and 2009. We also examined three Nunavut Acts and Agreements, three Canadian Federal Acts, and one International Agreement to better understand the regulations and policy positions. For each we sought to understand characterizations of: community uses of the marine environment; impacts of shipping; and monitoring of ship travel. Our objective was to investigate how well (or not) Inuit experiences and observations of arctic shipping were incorporated into policy provisions governing shipping in arctic waters. A comparative analysis of Inuit and policy positions shows shared and unique priorities as well as areas of apparent disconnect related to shipping in arctic waters. Therefore, this article highlights key considerations for arctic shipping from both practical and policy perspectives. We conclude with recommendations relating to undertaking community consultations, establishing the Marine Council, improving emergency response measures, and updating existing Acts and Agreements in an effort to contribute to ameliorate the situation for mutual benefit.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".