Comparative analysis of the implementation of the programs of sustainable development of the SIPN in the Northernand Arctic regions of Russia and the world
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the last decade, in connection with the industrial development of the northern and Arctic territories, the question arises of preserving the original unique culture of the indigenous peoples of the North (Indigenous Peoples of the North), leading a tribal and semi-tribal way of life. Topical in the light of the increased importance of the Arctic territories of the northern countries today are the issues of protecting the social rights of the indigenous peoples, including the preservation of traditional nature management and the life of ethno-cultural communities. Since the late 1980s to date, important international legal acts have been adopted regarding peoples leading a tribal and nomadic lifestyle: International Convention No. 169 of the International Labor Organization (1989); Kari-Oka Declaration and Charter of the World's Aboriginal Peoples (1992); UN Convention on Biological Diversity (1993); United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007). These legal acts significantly increased the rating of the indigenous peoples of the North, raising the problem of their preservation to the level of global importance, and necessitated the development of a support policy. Let us consider the experience of supporting indigenous peoples on the example of countries where the proportion of such a population occupies a significant share (Canada and Norway), as well as the experience of the northern territories of Russia.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".