MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2016537599 · doi:10.4337/jhre.2011.02.01

The food security of the Inuit in times of change: alleviating the tension between conserving biodiversity and access to food

2011· article· en· W2016537599 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sophie Thériault

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Human Rights and the Environment · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFood securityBiodiversityCompromiseAgency (philosophy)Flexibility (engineering)ArcticEnvironmental resource managementBusinessNatural resourceBiodiversity conservationNatural resource economicsEnvironmental planningFood systemsGeographyPolitical scienceEconomicsEcologySociologyAgriculture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Applying an environmental justice approach to the complex relationships between biodiversity conservation and Canadian Inuit food security, this article argues that the achievement of food security in the rapidly changing environment of the Arctic requires that the Inuit should have increased agency in global, national, regional and local decision-making processes related to biodiversity conservation initiatives that potentially compromise Inuit food economies. Guaranteeing the Inuit an effective voice in environmental decision-making processes would reduce the risk of adopting conservation measures ill-adapted to their food systems and, simultaneously increase local support for biodiversity conservation laws and policies, fostering, as a result, both increased flexibility in natural resources management and enhancing the capacity of the Inuit to adapt to shifting environmental conditions.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.346
Threshold uncertainty score0.696

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0220.007
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.115
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Human Rights and the EnvironmentSame topicIndigenous Studies and EcologyFrench-language works237,207