The Relationship between Kanngiqtugaapik/Clyde River and Greenpeace: An Interview with Mayor Jerry Natanine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For six years the Town of Kanngiqtugaapik/Clyde River, Nunavut, Canada battled Canada’s National Energy Board (NEB) about its approval for seismic testing near the community (Tasker, 2017). The NEB regulates “pipelines, energy development and trade in the Canadian public interest” (National Energy Board, 2018) but in this case the NEB stood accused of circumventing the public interest of the community and failing to do proper, and mandatory, consultation with the community and its Inuit land claim beneficiary residents. In a landmark series of events, the people of Kanngiqtugaapik/Clyde River partnered with Greenpeace to challenge the NEB in the Supreme Court of Canada. On the 26 July 2017 the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the community’s argument that the “proposed testing could negatively affect the treaty rights of the Inuit of Clyde River, who opposed the seismic testing, alleging that the duty to consult had not been fulfilled in relation to it” would be upheld (Supreme Court Judgments, 2017). On the 19th December 2018, I had an opportunity to talk by telephone with Mr. Jerry Natanine, Mayor of Kanngiqtugaapik /Clyde River. Mr. Natanine led the effort to protect his community and have Inuit treaty rights respected by the NEB. The following is a transcript of our conversation and his insights into the working relationship with Greenpeace, how it developed, and what role it played in assisting the efforts of Kanngiqtugaapik/Clyde River to have its rights respected.
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 | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.058 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.031 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".