Closing the Citizenship Gap in Canada's North: Indigenous Rights, Arctic Sovereignty, and Devolution in Nunavut
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When Canada signed the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement in 1993, it committed to create a new territory, Nunavut, as an Inuit homeland in the Canadian Eastern Arctic. Parliament fulfilled this promise with the passage of the Nunavut Act, and the new territory came into existence on April 1, 1999.\nStill, the Government of Nunavut remains a creature of statute and has only such powers as Parliament has devolved to it. To date, these devolved powers do not include jurisdiction over lands and resources. Nunavut is the only place in Canada where Canadian citizens may not elect a sub-national legislature empowered to make fundamental decisions about the land beneath their feet.\nThis Article explores the impact of this citizenship gap on indigenous rights in Nunavut and on Canada's security posture in the Arctic. As the sea ice melts and as much as a trillion dollars of oil and gas becomes profitably extractable, decisions about natural resources will become a focus not only of Canada’s domestic politics, but also of its international engagement. With a comparatively weak military presence in the Arctic, Canadian sovereignty has been borne out primarily in the form of permanent settlement, and the Inuit have played the part of “human flagpoles” in federal Northern policy. This Article argues that devolution, as a means to Inuit self-government, must occur in tandem with assertions of Canadian sovereignty in the Far North.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.062 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".