MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104946847 · doi:10.14430/arctic11

Voices from the Margins : the Muskekowuck Athinuwick/Cree People of Northern Ontario and the Management of <i>Wabusk</i>/Polar Bear

2009· article· en· W2104946847 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Raynald Harvey Lemelin, D. Peerla, Brian Walmark

Bibliographic record

VenueARCTIC · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBayGeographyClimate changePhysical geographyOceanographyArchaeologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ARIOUS STUDIES ON POLAR BEARS (Wabusk in Cree)indicate that the health and distribution of this animal and its habitat (i.e., dens, staging areas) are being affected by climate change (Scott et al., 2002;Obbard et al., 2006Obbard et al., , 2007)).Of special concern to the Muskekowuck Athinuwick/Cree People of northern Ontario are the Western Hudson Bay and the Southern Hudson Bay polar bear populations (the two located in Wînipekw, or Hudson and James bays), which the Cree comanage along with other stakeholders (i.e., Manitoba, Nunavut, Quebec, and other indigenous people with aboriginal and treaty rights).The co-management discussions among indigenous people with aboriginal and treaty rights and other stakeholders are complicated by proposed legislation that would change the polar bear's status in the United States and Canada (Lunn et al., 2006); by Inuit criticism of these proposed changes, which will affect their traditional practices (Freeman and Wenzel, 2006); and by the absence of the Muskekowuck Athinuwick/Cree People of northern Ontario from these discussions.This essay has two aims: to advocate Cree engagement in polar bear management and to remind resource managers, environmental non-governmental organizations, researchers, and academics that the Cree are a sovereign people with aboriginal and treaty rights that are affirmed and recognized in the Canadian Constitution.Although we do not claim to be objective, we do recognize-as Latour (1999) did-that all ways of knowing are socially constructed and influenced.We thus situate our subjectivity by stating that our perspective is not supported by any oil company, hunting proponent, or nonprofit environmental group.Two of the authors work with First Nation organizations, while the third is Métis.What we are attempting to do in this article is to ensure that all voices involved with polar bear management are heard.So far, the voice of the Muskekowuck Athinuwick/Cree People of northern Ontario, a recognized stakeholder in polar bear management, has been virtually silenced throughout polar bear debates.Reasons for this exclusion include the geographical isolation of these communities from decision-making centres in southern Canada, a lack of communication between management agencies and stakeholders, and a general lack

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.191

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0250.011
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations8
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueARCTICSame topicIndigenous Studies and EcologyFrench-language works237,207