Masyarakat Adat dan Diskursus Representasi di Lingkar Artik: Tinjauan Kosmopolitanisme dan Geopolitik Kritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Arctic Circle, without a doubt, has turned into a region of various complexities and holds a huge prominence in the contemporary world; especially if one link it with discourses regarding energy, resources, and maritime issues which have helped in triggering wide international contestations. These discourses, consequently, are getting more proliferated as the polar ice melting. However, the existing paradigm carried about within the research of the region tends to be ignorant of those whom are marginalized, yet distinctly significant to the shaping of the Arctic environment, under the shadows of nation-states and high politics agendas: the indigenous peoples. This article, therefore, would contribute to the political discourse of the Arctic by elaborating the perspective of indigenous people in regards of the ongoing dynamics. Utilizing Critical Cosmopolitanism as a normative basis, as well as taking the approach offered by Critical Geopolitics, this writing will try to deconstruct how the nation state’s prolonged hegemony impacting the Arctic Circle, displaying the significance held by indigenous communities, as well as factors leading to its heighten representation—with a more through focus on Inuit Peoples in regard of their population and prominence within the discourse. This article reveals that the shifting global paradigm which, in time, echoing Cosmopolitanism values, such as inclusivity, paves a way to the growing representation to the indigenous peoples.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".