MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2886624266 · doi:10.22584/nr47.2018.003

Lost in Translation? Exploring Outcomes of Nunavut’s Resource Development Training and Employment Policies for Inuit of Northern Baffin Island

2018· article· en· W2886624266 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Andrew P. Hodgkins

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Northern Review · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsYukon University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsTraining (meteorology)CorporationResource (disambiguation)Political scienceEconomic growthGeographyEnvironmental resource managementPublic relationsLawEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Northern Review 47 (2018): 31–57On 6 September 2013 the Mary River Inuit Impact and Benefit Agreement (MRIIBA) was signed between the Qikiqtani Inuit Association (QIA), representing the Inuit of Baffin Island, and Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation (BIMC). Among other things, the MRIIBA is intended to promote Inuit employment and training as a way of maximizing local benefits from the mine. Drawing from qualitative research that followed twenty-two formerly-employed and employed mine workers, this article critically evaluates the agreement’s outcomes, which have yet to fulfill the stated employment goals and training provisions. Contributing to these dismal outcomes is a communications gap between local Inuit and the land claims organizations responsible for brokering the agreement with the project proponent. The article explores the resulting gaps in communication between community members and various stakeholders involved with the project, and concludes by offering considerations for future agreements.

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)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.045
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.627
Threshold uncertainty score0.741

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.045
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.184
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Northern ReviewSame topicIndigenous Studies and EcologyFrench-language works237,207