Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Inuit in the Canadian Arctic have fought uranium mining on their ancestral lands for years. In 1993, after decades of negotiations, the federal government and Inuit representatives signed the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement (“NLCA”), which not only provided for the creation of the Territory of Nunavut as new political entity within the Canadian federal system and the establishment of a public territorial government, but also transferred land and resource ownership over vast areas of the newly-created territory, as well as considerable co-management rights, to the Inuit of Nunavut. To govern these special rights and benefits on behalf of the Inuit of Nunavut and to watch over the implementation of and adherence to the NLCA, the NLCA established the Inuit-organization Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. (“NTI”). Initially NTI banned uranium mining. In 2007, however, NTI reversed its stance and adopted a pro-uranium policy without prior Inuit, community or public input. Following the adoption of the new policy, several uranium mining companies have started to negotiate agreements with NTI to open mines on Inuit-owned lands. NTI’s decision to lift its ban on uranium mining has not only initiated a public debate on the safety and desirability of uranium mining in Nunavut but also calls the legitimacy of the political system of Nunavut into question. This paper will look at the different stakeholders involved in the uranium controversy and their powers to take and influence decisions regarding uranium mining. It is argued that the uranium controversy has revealed a democracy deficit that needs to be addressed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".