Bibliographic record
Abstract
The magnitude of rapid changes occurring in the Arctic have generated a further inquiry on the role of law and existing legal systems in meeting the many challenges that Northerners, Arctic indigenous peoples and their communities are facing today. On the one hand, we deal with the pluralism of legal orders across the Circumpolar Region which can be valuable to finding innovative solutions for existing issues, and it can be of learning significance to different Arctic jurisdictions. On the other hand, the dominating influence of national legal systems and legal procedures on the regulation of internal and local affairs of the Arctic sub-national entities and their communities raises the question of the role of indigenous legal traditions and practices in various Northern issues and developments. By looking mainly at the example of the Inuit of Canada’s Eastern and Central Arctic (Nunavut), to understand the Inuit law-ways, at the outset, this essay examines some general features of the traditional Inuit legal order. Further, by exploring some principles and aspects that define linkages and interactions between indigenous legal practices and “Western” law in the Arctic, it raises questions that are essential to our better understanding of the value of indigenous law in contemporary issues and developments in the 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".