MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2152761217 · doi:10.7202/702463ar

L’Arctique et l’internationalisme inuit

2005· article· en· W2152761217 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Peter Jull

Bibliographic record

VenueÉtudes internationales · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArctic and Russian Policy Studies
Canadian institutionsCentre Intégré de Santé et de Services Sociaux des Laurentides
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCircumpolar starGovernment (linguistics)InjusticeMilitarizationPolitical scienceArcticThe arcticSustainable developmentIdentity (music)GeographyEthnologyEnvironmental ethicsSociologyLawOceanographyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The driving force behind Inuit interest in international affairs has been the determination to solve the problems of under-development, environmental damage, social injustice, inadequate legal recognition and limited or non-existent self-government. To assist in the solution of these problems, the Inuit Circumpolar Conference (ICC) was founded in 1977. The Conference, which is presently headed by a Canadian Inuit (Mary Simon), holds a general assembly every three years and serves as the vehicle for overall Inuit identity and interests in the world. This identity has been developed in spite of international boundaries and East-West conflicts. Thus, the next general assembly, to be held in Sisimiut (Green-land) in 1989, will be the first where Soviet Inuit will join their kin from Alaska, Canada and Greenland. They will continue to address such fundamental issues as: the development of an overall Arctic policy ; the protection of the environment; sustainable development; international aboriginal rights; and the ongoing militarization of the Arctic, which is a cause of great concern to all Inuit.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.145
Threshold uncertainty score0.289

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.018
Scholarly communication0.0090.004
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.006
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.326 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations1
Published2005
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueÉtudes internationalesSame topicArctic and Russian Policy StudiesFrench-language works237,207