Socio-Environmental Impacts of Mobility on Inuit People and Its Consequences in the High Arctic Region of Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines the socio-environmental impacts of mobility on Inuit people and its consequences in the High Arctic region of Canada. Mobility is the part of Inuit culture, the Inuit people moved for hunting on familiar distances and sites that is the part of their life through generations. These patterns of mobility represent an admirable appreciation and familiar knowledge of the environment in the aboriginal people. The system of mobility as social change is related to the environmental stress, food shortage, fur-trade, construction of military bases, state policies, forced resettlement and non-renewable resources development projects in the Arctic region. Since 1950s, the Inuit of Canadian Arctic region have experience forcefully the mobilities in form of relocation, new-settlements, medical moves and residential schools as well as environmental mobility. The effects of relocation from their original lands have sustained through generations. There is another sad story of the DEW-line (Distance Early Warning) construction. The construction was started without any consent or notification to the local communities. Inuit people were displaced into other places with non-respectable way from their indigenous land. The residential school system was another a misfortune form of mobility which removed Aboriginal children from their parents and forcefully teach them ‘white manners’. This unfair treatment to the Inuit becomes big debate in the country from the several decades ago. Experience of mobility either it was due to relocation, displacement, individual or residential schools and mobility due to climate change are common story of Inuit people in the Arctic region of Canada. A number of families are still dealing with this intergenerational distresses.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".