Arctic Promise: Legal and Political Autonomy of Greenland and Nunavut
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Canada's Eastern Arctic and Greenland, the Inuit have been the majority for centuries. In recent years, they have been given a promise from Canadian and Danish governments that offers them more responsibility for their lands and thus control over their lives without fear of being outnumbered by outsiders. The Arctic Promise looks at how much the Inuit vision of self-governance relates to the existing public governance systems of Greenland and Nunavut, and how much autonomy there can be for territories that remain subordinate units of larger states.By means of a bottom-up approach involving cultural immersion, contextual, jurisprudential, and historical legal comparisons of Greenland and Nunavut, The Arctic Promise examines the forms, evolution, and scope of the right to autonomy in these Arctic jurisdictions. Loukacheva argues that the right to autonomy should encompass or protect Inuit jurisdiction in legal systems and the administration of justice, and should allow the Inuit direct participation in international affairs where issues that affect their homelands are concerned.The Arctic Promise deals with areas of comparative constitutional law, international law, Aboriginal law, legal anthropology, political science, and international relations, using each to contribute to the understanding of the right to indigenous autonomy
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".