MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386976028 · doi:10.23865/arctic.v2.17

Implementing the 1993 Nunavut Land Claims Agreement

2011· article· en· W4386976028 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alastair Campbell, Terry Fenge, Udloriak Hanson

Bibliographic record

VenueArctic review on law and politics · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArctic and Russian Policy Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeneral partnershipGovernment (linguistics)NegotiationAgency (philosophy)Political scienceArcticPublic administrationHonourPoliticsUnited Nations Convention on the Law of the SeaEnvironmental protectionLawConventionGeographySociologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Following more than 20 years of research and negotiation, the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement (NLCA) was ratified by Inuit and the Government of Canada in 1993. The territory of Nunavut and the Government of Nunavut were established in 1999 pursuant to the Agreement. In exchange for a wide range of constitutionally protected rights and benefits, the Inuit of Nunavut ceded to the Crown «all their aboriginal claims, rights, titles and interests … to lands and waters anywhere within Canada …» While much has been accomplished through the Agreement, huge implementation challenges remain. Successful implementation of the Agreement requires a firm and enduring partnership between the Inuit of Nunavut and the governments of Canada and Nunavut. To ensure that this partnership is effective and to safeguard the «honour of the Crown,» the Government of Canada should adopt policies and inter-agency and inter-governmental processes to ensure the Agreement is fully implemented.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.027
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.083
Threshold uncertainty score0.604

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0270.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0170.005
Scholarly communication0.0090.003
Open science0.0040.008
Research integrity0.0070.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.065
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.286 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArctic review on law and politicsSame topicArctic and Russian Policy StudiesFrench-language works237,207