Community development and the Northwest Territories Northern Land Use Planning Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study identifies and assesses the implications for community development in the Northwest Territories resulting from the structures and processes that have evolved from the Northwest Territories Northern Land Use Planning Program. Community development is described as a purposeful learning process whereby people identify their situation and plan and implement appropriate responses to it The original development strategies that have been applied to the Northwest Territories have been overwhelrningly modeled after the Western economic model, and have contributed to the dependency of northern communities upon government. Community development can help alleviate the powerlessness and economic and political dependency native northerners experience. Community development literature argues that any process leaving out those most affected by decisions will not lead to self-reliance. The Northern Land Use Planning Program was established as a "community-based" process to resolve land use conflicts; its 1983 Basis of Agreement mandated the sharing of authority to make land use plans between the native organizations, and the federal and territorial governments. The principle implication of the findings of this study is that although the Northern Land Use Planning Program is described as a community-based process, and has the potential and opportunity to develop structures and processes which contribute to community development in the Northwest Territories, it has done little to reduce dependency of communities on government. This is because the key elements of decision-making in the Northern Land Use Planning Program are held external to the communities.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".