“Hey, that's no way to say goodbye”: Territorial officials' perspectives on the division of the Northwest Territories
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Scholarship on jurisdictional division in Canada has paid limited attention to the bureaucratic dimensions of this exercise, focusing instead on the political, constitutional, and economic aspects of the process. This article addresses that imbalance by analysing the perspectives of senior officials in the Government of the Northwest Territories (GNWT) who were directly engaged in managing the process of territorial division that preceded the creation of Nunavut. Drawing on a range of interviews with senior officials in the GNWT, the article highlights the different perspectives of those who coordinated the financial and administrtive aspects of division ‐ government‐wide, those who micro‐managed division at the department level, and those who continue to manage organizations which serve as sites for new trans‐territorial relations between the Northwest Territories and Nunavut. The article explores the financial, administrative, and practical complexities of creating two new governments on the day of division and considers how the jurisdiction that is divided then reinvents itself. It uses the example of the Northwest Territories to raise awareness about the importance of examining the bureaucratic dimensions of jurisdictional division. Sommaire: Les travaux académiques sur la division juridictionnelle au Canada n'ont prêté que peu d'attention aux dimensions bureaucratiques de cet exercice, mais se sont par contre concentrés sur les aspects politiques, constitutionnels et économiques du processus. Le présent article examine ce déséquilibre en analysant les perspectives de hauts fonctionnaires du gouvernement des Territoires du Nord‐Ouest (GTNO) qui ont été directement impliqués dans la gestion du processus de division territoriale qui précéda la création de Nunavut. Se fondant sur toute une gamme d'interviews de hauts dirigeants du GTNO, l'article souligne les différentes perspectives de ceux qui ont coordonné les aspects financiers et administratifs de la division à l'échelle du gouvernement, ceux qui ont micro‐géré la division au niveau des ministères et qui continuent à gérer les organismes qui servent de sites aux nouvelles relations trans‐territoriales entre les Territoires du Nord‐Ouest et Nunavut. L'article examine les complexités financières, administratives et pratiques dues à la création de deux nouveaux gouvernements au moment de la division et étudie comment la juridiction qui est divisée se réinvente ensuite. Il prend l'exemple des Territoires du Nord‐Ouest pour accroître la sensibilisation à l'importance d'examiner les dimensions bureaucratiques de la division juridictionnelle. Technically, I think we did it as well as it could be done and we were breaking new ground. There were no models out there and we came up with some approaches and I think those approaches are still valid today. If I were doing it again I would do it the same way. I remember making the comment sometime during this exercise that it would provide the raw material for many PhDs for years and years to come to show how not to establish a government?
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".