Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’expérience du Nunavut est basée sur un compromis entre la volonté des Inuit de reconquérir une certaine autonomie et celle du gouvernement fédéral d’assurer sa souveraineté sur l’Arctique canadien et d’obtenir une certitude juridique pour l’exploitation des ressources du Nunavut. Dans ce contexte, on peut se demander si le gouvernement du Nunavut donne plus d’autonomie aux Inuit ou s’il s’agit simplement d’une structure postcoloniale qui répond principalement aux normes de rationalité occidentales. Le concept de «composition» proposé par Latour nous offre une façon de comprendre les relations entre la gouverne inuit et occidentale au Nunavut. Dans cet article, ce sont donc les interrelations des acteurs, des visions et des institutions qui forment le cadre de notre analyse de la composition du Nunavut. Après une caractérisation de la gouverne dans les sociétés inuit, nous verrons à travers l’analyse des compromis, des institutions et des pratiques du Nunavut comment gouvernance inuit et rationalité gouvernementale occidentale interagissent au sein du nouveau territoire.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".