“We, The Inuit of Labrador”: Balancing Inuit and Western Traditions in the Nunatsiavut Constitution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada’s Indigenous peoples have slowly been reclaiming control over their lands and lives. As a wide range of institutions emerges, designed to enhance Indigenous peoples’ ability to govern themselves according to their own principles and priorities, academic attention is shifting from normative arguments about the need for self-government to the study of actual institutions. This article examines the constitution of the Nunatsiavut Government, the self-government regime established by the Inuit of Northern Labrador in 2005. The Nunatsiavut Constitution is a lengthy, formal document that not only sets out in detail the structures of the Nunatsiavut Government and how they are to operate but also proclaims the cultural and political aspirations of the Labrador Inuit. It is thus an instructive case for the consideration of how, and to what extent, Indigenous self-governments accommodate the tensions between Indigenous forms and norms of governance with the structures and principles of Western governance. Particular attention is devoted to the design of the only Inuit self-government in Canada, to the influence of Inuit culture on the organization and operation of the Nunatsiavut Government, and to constitutional provisions relating to the role of women in government and in society generally. The article is based on a close reading of the document, supplemented by interviews with key figures involved in the development of the constitution and with present-day Nunatsiavut Government officials.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".