MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3084609034 · doi:10.1016/j.mex.2020.101064

Arctic corridors and northern voices project: Methods for community-based participatory mapping for low impact shipping corridors in Arctic Canada

2020· article· en· W3084609034 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueMethodsX · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersKorea Coast GuardSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaFisheries and Oceans CanadaNunavut Research InstituteDalhousie UniversityUniversity of the Sunshine CoastPolar Knowledge CanadaArcticNetDairy Farmers of OntarioNunavut Wildlife Research TrustCarleton UniversityTransport CanadaMarine Environmental Observation Prediction and Response NetworkPew Charitable Trusts
KeywordsRigourParticipatory action researchArcticContext (archaeology)Focus groupRelevance (law)Citizen journalismEnvironmental planningQualitative researchEnvironmental resource managementGeographySociologyPolitical scienceEnvironmental scienceOceanographySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Documenting Inuit and local knowledge is critical to its consideration within policy discussions around Arctic shipping; especially considering the rapid increase in ship traffic due to reductions in sea ice and climate change. We present our unique community-based research approach which incorporated youth training, participatory mapping, qualitative focus group discussions, and verification exercises to document Inuit communities' perspectives in Arctic Canada about Low Impact Shipping Corridors. These qualitative activities provided appropriate context and understanding around community-created maps, community-identified opportunities, concerns, and recommendations, and the policy relevance and feasibility of recommendations posed. Three activity phases were employed; 1) before engaging in in-community research, 2) during in-community research, and 3) after completing in-community research. Spatial and non-spatial data were analyzed using ArcGIS® and NVivo software, respectively. These methods and observations can inform future research initiatives, particularly transdisciplinary teams, including those involving southern-based (early career) researchers, working in Inuit Nunangat.•Methods presented here ensured that scientific processes and outputs were robust and rigorous and research was conducted in a respectful, reciprocal manner.•Only through the collaborative efforts of a transdisciplinary team could scientific rigour be attained and respect be afforded.•The approach can be easily applied to document community members' perspectives on local priorities.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.512
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.278
GPT teacher head0.505
Teacher spread0.227 · 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