MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2394298760

Study on Inuit and Arctic Governance

2014· article· en· W2394298760 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Pan Mi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Tongji University · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArctic and Russian Policy Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArcticIndigenousCorporate governancePoliticsGovernment (linguistics)Subordination (linguistics)Political scienceEnvironmental governanceThe arcticEnvironmental planningEnvironmental resource managementPublic administrationGeographyEconomicsEcologyLawOceanographyManagement
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of indigenous knowledge is a relatively hot topic on Arctic governance.Arctic governance is currently focused on building national coordination mechanisms at the international political level,which are aimed to establish the Arctic environmental system,the allocation criteria and the principle of tackling territorial and resource disputes.This paper studies the Arctic indigenous social management and governance principles from the Inuit perspective.First,it explores the research principles of Inuit governance including leadership generation methods,the principle of consensus decision-making,and the integration of environmental attitudes toward nature;then the principles of Inuit governance in the Arctic governance are established such as observation of Arctic environmental changes,use and management of resources,as well as self-government of Nunavut; finally,the paper claims that the current subordination of Inuit prevents it from becoming an independent political power in Arctic governance.

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)0.001
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.171
Threshold uncertainty score0.340

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Tongji UniversitySame topicArctic and Russian Policy StudiesFrench-language works237,207