MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2885279910 · doi:10.22584/nr47.2018.001

Introduction: Dealing with Resource Development in Canada’s North

2018· article· en· W2885279910 on OpenAlex
Chris Southcott

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

VenueThe Northern Review · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsLakehead UniversityYukon University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsResource (disambiguation)Environmental ethicsEnvironmental planningGeographyBusinessNatural resource economicsHistoryComputer scienceEconomicsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the 1970s, southern Canada changed its perception of resource development in the Canadian North. At the beginning of the decade most observers outside of the Yukon and Northwest Territories, as well as many within the territories, saw resource development as something that was going to be of great benefi t to the North The Northern Vision that had emerged in the 1950s While some were critical of specifi c government policies, the general acceptance that continued mine and oil and gas development would be important for the region was almost universal among those whose voices were most heard on the subject This changed in the 1970s when the voices of the Indigenous peoples of the region fi rst started to be heard. The Berger Inquiry of that decade was probably the best known instance of people outside the region being able to hear what Indigenous communities thought about resource development in their region

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.914
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.279 · 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