The Complicated Intersection of Politics, Administrative and Constitutional Law in Nunavut's Environmental Impacts Assessment Regime
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Canada, it is somewhat unique that environmental impacts assessment is carried out by both the federal and provincial governments, under separate but complimentary assessment regimes. Even more unique is the environmental impacts assessment regime which exists in the territory of Nunavut, Canada’s youngest jurisdiction. What makes environmental impacts assessment most unique in Nunavut is the complicated intersection of land use planning, administrative rules and procedures derived from a constitutionally-protected modern day treaty — the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement (NLCA or Agreement), and the infusion of fundamental, rudimentary or bare politics. Whereas the majority of jurisdictions in Canada base their environmental impacts assessment regimes on a commonly developed and accepted framework that divides assessment based on jurisdiction and project type — and leaves land use planning to provincial municipalities — the regime in Nunavut is based almost entirely on a process laid out in the NLCA and has as its aims the preservation of the Aboriginal rights and interests of Inuit beneficiaries protected by and under the Agreement. Upon closer scrutiny, however, it is apparent that the environmental impacts assessment and land use planning regimes prescribed in the NLCA, and supplemented by the federal Nunavut Project Planning and Assessment Act, are not only significantly different from other regimes in Canada but, also, that these very regimes which were designed or intended to promote and protect those rights and interests which Inuit obtained through negotiation and ratification of the NLCA may in fact undermine and fragment them.
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 | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".