MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3114619442 · doi:10.17323/1996-7845-2020-04-07

Sustainable Development in Canada’s Arctic Territories: Goals and Results

2020· article· en· W3114619442 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Andreĭ Sakharov, Inna V. Andronova

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Organisations Research Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArctic and Russian Policy Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSustainable developmentPopulationPer capitaArcticEconomic growthGeographyNatural resource economicsBusinessEconomicsPolitical scienceEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The sustainable development agenda is gaining singular prominence in the context of studying development challenges in the Arctic. This region is particularly vulnerable to climate change and its ramifications and faces, due to its geographical remoteness, some of the greatest challenges in terms of the socio-economic aspects highlighted in the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. This article reviews the experience of Canada, as a large northern country with vast territories and water areas beyond the Arctic Circle, in implementing national strategies and programmes for the development of its Arctic territories. The article identifies effective policy measures to create favourable conditions for sustainable socio-economic development through an analysis of the actual dynamics of key sustainable development indicators in Canada’s northern territories.Socio-economic development of the northern territories — Nunavut, Northwest Territories and Yukon — is one of the key priorities of Canada’s strategic development plans. These include the Federal Sustainable Development Strategy, the Northern Strategy and the Arctic and Northern Policy document. The following indicators were selected to analyze the implementation of these plans: population dynamics, life expectancy, gross regional product (GRP), unemployment rate, level of education of the population, share of economically active population, labour productivity, balance of regional budgets, federal subsidies in the structure of regional budgets, number of educational institutions, share of new renewable energy sources in the structure of electricity production, greenhouse gas emissions per capita, and hydrocarbons extraction.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.098
Threshold uncertainty score0.711

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.008
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0060.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.311 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Organisations Research JournalSame topicArctic and Russian Policy StudiesFrench-language works237,207