Made in Nunavut: An Experiment in Decentralized Government, by Jack Hicks and Graham White
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Made in Nunavut fills an important gap.Up to now little has been written about the process through which the new territory was formed, in the period from 1993 to 1999, and on the extent to which the hopes and aspirations for that territory have been realized in the years following its establishment.This is the subject matter of Made in Nunavut, with a particular focus on the decentralization of certain functions of the Nunavut government to various communities across the territory.It is a work well suited to students of political science, public administration, and northern studies, primarily at the university level, but for some at a college level as well: it provides an enormous information base.It is written in a non-technical manner, and in this sense is also suited to the general reader.The authors describe this study as a work of two decades.Jack Hicks, we are told, "literally lived the Nunavut decentralization experience" (p.xi).From 1994 to 1996, he was Director of Research for the Nunavut Implementation Commission (NIC), which was the body charged with the administrative design of the first Nunavut government.Later he served as Director of the Evaluation and Statistics Division for the Government of Nunavut, a body that was decentralized to Pangnirtung: a move of which he is very critical (see note 127, p. 361).He thus brings to the study the knowledge of a direct participant.Graham White is a professor of Political Science at the University of Toronto.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".