Inuit Governance and Contemporary Challenges: New Questions for Arctic Governance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article explores the concept of governance, primarily in terms of policy rather than law, and examines current Inuit governance in light of recent economic and political changes in the Arctic region at the national and international level, with criteria of procedure (effficiency) and substance (equity). It points out that striking diffferences exist between Inuit regions in terms of governance and political institutions. Regarding procedure, it is shown that the main impediments are the fragmentation of administrative institutions and the implementations of provisions of agreements. In terms of equity, in some cases the right to self-determination is not guaranteed or efffective, and the ownership of land, sub-surface rights, except in Greenland is not operative. On the international stage, the equity criteria is not met. Completed with an approach in terms of politics, according to which the weigh of actors, such as Inuit actors, included in the process of governance, should be related to their political representativeness, the approach in terms of governance shows that Inuit governance has reached a stage that requires new balances of power between regional, national and international institutions, therefore a renewed reflection on centre and periphery to re-imagine the place the South could have in the North.
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 | 0.005 | 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 | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".