Bibliographic record
Abstract
Impact Benefit Agreements are typically hidden from public view by confidentiality clauses. However, a recent trend towards public disclosure of IBAs in Nunavut has made scrutiny possible. In light of this unique disclosure, this paper analyses the contents of Nunavut’s IBAs and the short-term consequences of their transparency, reaching three conclusions : (1) the contents of Nunavut’s IBAs are quasi-legislative, resembling public law more than private law in scope and scale — a characterization which warrants transparency ; (2) IBAs’ increasing role in the Duty to Consult may further warrant transparency, and (3) IBA transparency in Nunavut has allowed ideas to spread among Nunavut’s communities and has invited constructive public and academic scrutiny. In reaching these conclusions, this paper does not suggest that all IBAs ought to be publicized. There are a variety of reasons why both Indigenous communities and extractive proponents opt for IBA confidentiality. Nonetheless, the trend away from confidentiality in Nunavut invites a broader discussion about the merits of IBA transparency.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".