Territoire politique et identités autochtones-spatialités en mutation : le cas de la communauté inuit des îles Belcher au Nunavut (Canada)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On April, 1st 1999, the creation of a third territory called Nunavut led to a reorganisation of the internal boundaries of Canada. After some 30-year negociations, Nunavut has become a territory with a strong identity, but with no ethnic meaning. The land is peopled up to 85% by Inuit natives who follow their own policy. To understand the way the Inuit have built Nunavut and now experience and dream it on a day-to-day basis, our investigation led us to a conceptual, epistemological and methodological inquiry. We first questioned the research methods that were used by our predecessors and some basic concepts underlying Western geographical notions such as that of In achieving a form of political territory, the Inuit had to fit their own conception of the territory -based on a cosmogony in which the Earth is the mother of men- to the Western ideological model of territory. By acknowledging the right men have upon the Earth, the Nunavut political territory disrupts the foundations of the inuit sense of place. When they chose to belong to Nunavut, the Inuit community of the Belcher islands turned their back on the social and spatial networks that connected them to Nunavik. They decided instead that their essential spatial identity should be linked to the core territory of Hudson Bay and James Bay. This example shows that the creation of Nunavut led to the expression of a foundational sense of place. This was mainly possible because of the way Inuit leaders negotiated with the Federal, by instilling their own cultural values at each step of the negotiations. Nunavut materializes the adjustment of a territorial model by a native ideology of space.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".