INUIT ENGAGEMENT IN NUNAVUT AND CANADA: STRUGGLES FOR HEALTH AND CITIZENSHIP
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis is a post-structural analysis of Inuit engagement in health governance in the new territory of Nunavut. The creation of Nunavut brings decision-making power to a largely Inuit population through both a land claims agreement and the establishment of a public government. As such, it marks a new moment in the history of Aboriginal governance in Canada and in relations between North and South, Inuit and non-Inuit. The establishment of Nunavut is the result of a decades-long Inuit struggle for self-determination. This struggle is an articulation of citizenship, of how Inuit think about who they are within communities and within the nation. This struggle does not suggest that citizenship is simply about membership in the nation, nor is it simply about the rights that come with that membership. It suggests, instead, that citizenship is how people engage in the governance of their lives. This study is based on a qualitative methodology including fieldwork in three Nunavut communities, interviews, and document analysis. I consider how relations between North and South, Inuit and non-Inuit have shaped health governance in the Central and Eastern Arctic. I explore how various conceptions of health and self are implicated in how citizens participate in health governance in Nunavut. This research makes several important contributions to the study of health, ethnicity, governance, and citizenship. It contributes to a current emphasis in the social sciences on notions of health and citizenship as contingent and variable. It points to the need for new research on the implications of citizenship struggles in remote communities for health governance. Finally, this research points to the instability of power relations and joins in efforts to rethink the way we organize and govern health and our lives.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.045 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".