The Arctic Promise: Legal and Political Autonomy of Greenland and Nunavut
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Arctic Promise: Legal and Political Autonomy of Greenland and Nunavut, Natalia Loukacheva, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2007, pp. xii, 255. Is there political space for a northern vision of governance? This book is a comparative evaluation of Inuit efforts to realize autonomy within the Danish realm and Canadian federation through the creation and evolution of Greenland and Nunavut. A comparative legal and historical analysis is used to make normative claims about Inuit autonomy in these two jurisdictions. The concept of autonomy is defined by the author as “equivalent to self-government in the context of an internal right to self-determination” (6). It is argued that there is no need for Inuit in either territory to pursue a special type of indigenous autonomy because Inuit legal and political aspirations can be realized through existing arrangements. Loukacheva claims, “The Inuit majorities of Nunavut and Greenland in practice are turning de jure territorial forms of governance into de facto indigenous ones” (40). The evidence presented in this book may not constitute the last word on Inuit autonomy, but it sure is provocative.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".