Thomas R. Berger. (2006, March). Conciliator's Final Report: "The Nunavut Project"
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Thomas R. Berger. (2006, March). Conciliator's Final Report: Nunavut Project In a controversial report, Thomas Berger recommended that key to improve representation of Inuit in territorial government workforce is to expand a program of bilingual English-Inuktitut education from kindergarten to grade 12. His emphasis on importance of primary and secondary education to prepare Inuit for workforce participation at all levels is a necessary and sensible response to federal territorial bickering about responsibility for improving work-force participation of Inuit. However, gains he projects from expanding bilingual education--even if he were not underestimating challenges of implementation--cannot be a centre-piece for reform without taking into account equally serious challenges of improving overall educational quality and directly tackling issues of socio-economic disadvantage. BACKGROUND The Territory of Nunavut was created as part of settlement of outstanding land claim of Inuit. The settlement included creation of a new public government in Canada's Eastern Arctic, representing all citizens living in newly created territory. The new territorial government has powers similar to those of a province in Canada, including responsibility for education; however, Nunavut is unique in Canada because 85 per cent of population are members of a single Aboriginal group, Inuit. The settlement also included a comprehensive Land Claim Agreement, with constitutional status, between Government of Canada and Inuit representatives. Apart from typical provisions concerning issues of land title and environmental management, Land Claim Agreement contains a commitment in Article 23 'to increase Inuit participation in government employment in Nunavut Settlement Area to a representative level. Berger calls Article 23 equity clause for a majority (2006, p. 14). Eighty-five per cent employment by 2020 is goal, within all occupational groupings and grade levels. (Nunavut Land Claim Agreement, 1993, Art.23.1.1). Currently, Inuit employment is stalled at approximately 45 per cent, and is concentrated in administrative and support positions. The commitment to Inuit employment is crucially important for equity in territory. It is an effort to open up economic opportunities to Inuit and ensure Inuit are represented in bureaucracy which has had a strong political impact on territory. There have been tensions over implementation of land claim in general and Article 23 in particular between federal and territorial government and Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, organization representing Inuit. These tensions date back before creation of territory in 1999. (1) A key issue is Canada's responsibility for future steps, if any, required to improve representation of Inuit in Nunavut's public service. In 2005, three parties agreed to appointment of Thomas Berger as conciliator, a person identified as a recognized problem solver who could make a neutral assessment of issues and provide parties with recommendations that may resolve our differences (Director General, Implementation Branch, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, cited in Berger, 2006, p. 2). Berger has extensive, high profile experience with Aboriginal issues in Canada and internationally. A former judge, he is best known for Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Inquiry in late 1970s, which halted a massive planned pipeline development in interest of Aboriginal people and their Iands in Western Arctic. BERGER'S REPORT AND THE NUNAVUT PROJECT Berger starts from powerful observation that the objective of Article 23 has not nearly been realized (p. 17). He goes on to fault all parties for focusing more on question of where responsibility for that failure lies than working to address squarely question of how to achieve objectives in territory. …
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.141 | 0.060 |
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".