MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2584049689 · doi:10.1163/22116427_008010008

The Greenland Self-Government Act: The Pitfall for the Inuit in Greenland to Remain an Indigenous People?

2017· article· en· W2584049689 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Bent Ole Gram Mortensen, Ulrike Barten

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Yearbook of Polar Law Online · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArctic and Russian Policy Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousIndependence (probability theory)Government (linguistics)Self-determinationCategorizationnobodyPolitical scienceGeographyIdentification (biology)LawComputer securityEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Are the Inuit in Greenland an indigenous people under international law? And what are the consequences of that categorization? This article focuses on the right to self-determination as the Inuit are recognized as an indigenous people; however, the Greenlanders have the explicit right to independence. The article concludes that the Self-Government Act can be regarded as the pitfall for the Inuit as an indigenous people. So far, nobody has fallen in; however, independence may mean an end to the status as an indigenous people. While the law might be considered relatively clear on this, the self-identification as an indigenous people will most likely not stop overnight.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.745
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.310 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations6
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Yearbook of Polar Law OnlineSame topicArctic and Russian Policy StudiesFrench-language works237,207