Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 (Abele, 1987;Rea, 1968).The Northern Vision that had emerged in the 1950s (Diefenbaker, 1958) continued throughout the 1960s with varying degrees of enthusiasm.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 (Lotz , 1970).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 (Berger, 1977).These communities told listeners that resource development had not been kind to them.Mining and the nascent oil and gas industry had been devastating to their traditional livelihoods and to their cultures.They believed that under the conditions that existed at that time, future resource development would devastate the environment that they depended upon for their survival (Berger, 1977: xi).Assaults on their cultures from European culture would increase (xvii).In terms of economic benefi ts,
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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".