MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2774402995 · doi:10.23865/arctic.v5.1048

“Working Together”: The Dynamics of Multilevel Governance in Nunavut

2014· article· en· W2774402995 on OpenAlexaffabout
Thierry Rodon

Bibliographic record

VenueArctic review on law and politics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalCenter for Northern Studies
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorporate governanceGovernment (linguistics)LegitimacyPopulationPublic administrationBeneficiaryRevenuePolitical scienceEconomic growthBusinessEconomicsSociologyPoliticsLawFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aboriginal self-government is changing the governance landscape in Canada. This paper focuses on a little-studied aspect of aboriginal self-govern¬ment arrangements, namely the horizontal dispersion of power among non-gov¬ernmental institutions in the policy process. Nunavut, the Canadian territory created in 1999, offers a good example of this horizontal power dispersion. The Government of Nunavut is the only Canadian public government stemming from a land claim agreement. This creates a special set of obligations and entrenches a horizontal multilevel governance model, with a unique model of governance between a public government, the government of Nunavut (GN), that serves a pre¬dominantly Inuit population, and a nonprofit beneficiary organization, Nunavut Tunngavik Inc.(NTI), representing the Inuit of Nunavut. In this paper we map out the authority and legitimacy of these levels of governance and the impacts of this system on Nunavut public policies and access to resource development revenues.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.136
Threshold uncertainty score0.278

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0120.020
Scholarly communication0.0080.003
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.326 · 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
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

Citations14
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArctic review on law and politicsSame topicIndigenous Studies and EcologyFrench-language works237,207