MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2164092549 · doi:10.1017/s0032247406005316

Remaking Arctic governance: the construction of an Arctic Inuit polity

2006· article· en· W2164092549 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jessica M. Shadian

Bibliographic record

VenuePolar Record · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArctic and Russian Policy Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Department of the InteriorNational Science Foundation
KeywordsArcticCircumpolar starPoliticsIndigenousPolitical scienceContext (archaeology)NarrativeNatural resourceGeographyEnvironmental ethicsOceanographyArchaeologyLawEcologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article focuses on the construction of the Inuit Circumpolar Conference (ICC), the aim being to offer the historical context within which the ICC came to serve as a significant voice for Arctic policy making and as a representative of Inuit peoples in general. It explores the role of the ICC in relation to the domestic, regional, and international political events taking place during its formative years in order to provide the basis through which the ICC came to be a political authority in the Arctic. While the main coalescence of events was around the theme of Arctic resource development, each event significantly helped lay the foundation for, and structures under which, Arctic policy would proceed into the future. This includes a changing Arctic narrative that has transformed the Arctic from a being a region concentrated on resource extraction and Cold War security into a region serving as a symbolic pinnacle for global sustainable development. Through the expanded political agency of the ICC and an international focus on the Arctic, a vision of the Arctic has emerged under which it is defined by its natural environment and by the indigenous peoples who inhabit this space. This is an INDIPO project paper (Tennberg 2006).

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.097
Threshold uncertainty score0.193

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0310.022
Scholarly communication0.0140.005
Open science0.0010.011
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.277 · 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

Citations26
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolar RecordSame topicArctic and Russian Policy StudiesFrench-language works237,207