MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2771018542 · doi:10.31542/j.ecj.1228

Inuit Co-Management Strategies in the Arctic

2017· article· en· W2771018542 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueEarth Common Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsMacEwan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArcticIndigenousThe arcticEnvironmental resource managementPower (physics)Traditional knowledgeClimate changeEnforcementBusinessSustainable managementPolitical scienceEnvironmental ethicsEnvironmental planningGeographySustainabilityEcologyEconomicsOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Inuit co-management of northern resources and environments is critical to the survival of these rapidly changing ecosystems. This paper explores co-management initiatives currently present in the Arctic, as well as the creation and implementation of these strategies. The relationship between Indigenous traditional knowledge and the success of co-management strategies is analyzed, noting that dismissive beliefs held by Eurocentric power figures affect the existence and enforcement of these strategies. The effects of climate change and faunal conservation are two of the pillars upon which co-management techniques are founded in Arctic communities, making them key players in the pursuit of a sustainable future.

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.

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)0.002
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.189
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0110.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.355 · 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