MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2477235810 · doi:10.1057/9781137468253_6

Ripple Effects: Devolution, Development and State Sovereignty in the Canadian North

2016· book-chapter· en· W2477235810 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Heather Nicol

Bibliographic record

VenuePalgrave Macmillan UK eBooks · 2016
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArctic and Russian Policy Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSovereigntyMandateDevolution (biology)State (computer science)Political sciencePoliticsGovernment (linguistics)Corporate governanceAgency (philosophy)Public administrationTerritorial integrityPolitical economyGeographyBusinessEconomicsLawSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter explores the way in which Canada’s current territorial development policies and initiatives reinforce current and substantive interests of Arctic security and sovereignty promoted by the Canadian government. In particular, it examines the emerging political, economic and spatial dynamic resulting from recent rounds of state-centered interest and agency directed toward ‘protecting’ Arctic borders and securing ‘Canadian’ sovereign territory. This security and sovereignty mandate, as it has been constructed through various Canadian federal government departments, appears to now inform the workings of a number of state agencies and institutions, and to have created a series of cascading impacts throughout the Canadian North, ultimately influencing regional and local boundaries of self-governance and comanagement, compromising a more general comprehensive security, if not soft security practices.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.845
Threshold uncertainty score0.980

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0190.027
Scholarly communication0.0110.003
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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 head0.247
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePalgrave Macmillan UK eBooksSame topicArctic and Russian Policy StudiesFrench-language works237,207