Evaluating Key Informant Perspectives on Inuit Self-Determination and Economic Participation in Nunavut
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The negotiation of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement (1993) and subsequent creation of the territory of Nunavut in 1999 have been considered by some to be the beginning of the nation to nation reconciliation between the Inuit of the Eastern Arctic and Canada. The institutions of public government that were created through this agreement are intended in part to support Inuit in shaping their economic livelihoods in the territory on their terms. However, it is unclear how territorial and regional planners and decision-makers in positions of power conceptualize “successful economic development” in Nunavut and what implications this could have for Inuit self-determination. Key informants from the Government of Nunavut (GN) and several Inuit and Land Claims Organizations (ILCOs) were interviewed (n=17) to understand how they conceptualize successful development in the territory and what they think is needed to attain their vision. A framework for Indigenous nation building (Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development), developed from three decades of research, is used to analyze the interview results. The results of this qualitative analysis indicate that key informants interpret their role toward Inuit self-determination as promoting Inuit participation in Nunavut’s market-based, wage-labour economy. This has important implications for possible GN and ILCO coordination and collaboration in their socio-economic efforts on behalf of Nunavummiut.
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 | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".