An analysis of language provisions in the Nunavut Act and the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Nunavut Act and Nunavut Land Claims Agreement were negotiated in response to a plethora of needs and desires, as expressed by the Government of Canada, the Government of the Northwest Territories and the Nunavut Tungavik Inc., an organization representing the Inuit living in the Nunavut region. An analysis of the articles in these two documents illuminates both what these needs and desires were at the time of negotiation and what the three parties deemed to be mutually appropriate and acceptable legislation in response to these needs. One relatively minor index of such concerns is the provisions for the use of the Inuit language, Inuktitut. In this paper, we examine the clauses in the Nunavut Act and the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement that deal specifically with language use in varying contexts. This systematic analysis of the language provisions reveals that although language is a minor element, it is nonetheless treated explicitly and compellingly in the two founding documents of the Nunavut Territory. The analysis further demonstrates that the application of the provisions is unambiguous and, if done conscientiously, will lead to certain intended, as well as other, perhaps unintended, results.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".