The central role of Inuit Qaujimaningit in Nunavut’s impact assessment process
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT In impact assessment (IA) the value of different forms of knowledge is increasingly acknowledged, but implementation and practice challenges continue. In Nunavut, a territory in the Canadian Arctic, Indigenous knowledge plays a key role in understanding and defining environmental baselines and guiding the assessment process; however, even here there are needs and opportunities for improved treatment and use of Indigenous knowledge in assessment and decision-making. This paper outlines the central role of Inuit Qaujimaningit/Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ) (Inuit knowledge) in shaping and defining Nunavut’s impact assessment process. The work highlights the potential of the Nunavut process to provide a model for the use of Indigenous knowledge in IA, and of co-management or Indigenous-led impact assessment. Focus groups were held with board members and staff of the Nunavut Impact Review Board – the co-management board responsible for impact assessment in the territory. The results highlight the unique qualities of the impact assessment process in Nunavut and demonstrate how IQ is a crucial component of project review, notably its role in decision-making and for ensuring that the process is meaningful to communities. The results and recommendations have value to a range of other jurisdictions that are also working towards using Indigenous knowledge in environmental decision-making or even seeking to advance Indigenous-led impact assessment.
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 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 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 it