Preface and Acknowledgments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is scarcely an exaggeration to suggest that, in one way or another, we worked on this book for two decades.Jack Hicks literally lived the Nunavut decentralization experience.From its inception in early 1994 to early 1997, by which point its work was largely complete, he served as the director of research for the Nunavut Implementation Commission (NIC), which developed the basic design of the Government of Nunavut (GN) and championed the decentralized model.As such he was intimately involved in NIC discussions and planning about decentralization and attended many of the meetings described throughout the book.Shortly before the start-up of the GN, he was appointed Nunavut's chief statistician; his formal title was "director, evaluation and statistics."Ironically, he was effectively decentralized out of his job in the ill-advised move of the GN's Evaluation and Statistics Division from Iqaluit to Pangnirtung described in Chapter 9.With respect to this episode, he wishes to emphasize that his decision to resign from the GN rather than accept a transfer to Pangnirtung was not a comment on that community -he had previously lived in "Pang" and greatly enjoyed his time there -but, rather, reflected his view that locating a key central agency outside the capital was organizationally dysfunctional, a view he believes has been confirmed by subsequent developments.As well, he accepts the government's right to make political decisions to shift administrative positions, his included, as it did in this instance, though he remains of the view that decentralization of central agencies constitutes a serious mistake.Nor was this his final personal experience of decentralization.Chapters
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 | 0.003 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.267 | 0.164 |
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".