Igloo as Icon: A Human Rights Approach to Climate Change for the Inuit?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Global climate change has triggered a period of great instability in the Arctic. Indigenous communities are experiencing rapid social and cultural transformation: changes in the physical landscape are contributing to the relentless pressures on their traditional ways of life, which, in large part, are dependent on the persistence of snow and ice. This paper is an exploration of what a 'human rights approach' to climate change can offer Inuit communities. It analyzes the potential contribution of the human right to housing, which recognizes that housing must be culturally adequate; that its location must allow access to employment and social facilities; and that certain services, materials, facilities and infrastructure must be available to the dwellers. This right takes on particular significance for the Inuit because of the iconic nature of their traditional homes and building materials and the location and climate specific nature of their ways of life. But can this right be harnessed to respond to the threats climate change poses to the ways of living of the Inuit without appealing to a static, traditional view of indigenous culture, a view that poses its own risks to the survival of their unique identity?The paper mounts a critical analysis of the prospects and boundaries of the right to housing, so that the human rights strategies - both discursive and legal - that the Inuit are beginning to employ in the face of climate change can be pursued with greater awareness of their implications, and thus with greater prospects for success. Emerging attempts to link climate change with human rights around the globe give the issues addressed in this paper significance for other marginalized communities considering rights strategies in response to climate change, from Alaska to Bangladesh.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.019 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".