MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388665996 · doi:10.54056/mtta4053

Reconciling the North: Transit Pipelines and the Pursuit of Self-Sufficient Self-Government in the Yukon

2018· article· en· W4388665996 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nicholas J. Wilson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Aboriginal Economic Development · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArctic and Russian Policy Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousGovernment (linguistics)State (computer science)Context (archaeology)Settlement (finance)Political scienceIndigenous rightsBoundary (topology)Public administrationEconomyEconomic growthLawGeographyBusinessEconomicsHuman rightsFinanceArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The research investigates how the responsibilities of Self-Governing Yukon First Nations (SGYFNs) regarding Settlement Land under the Umbrella Final Agreement, 1993, can be used to advance pipeline projects on Indigenous land title. In doing so, it challenges the contemporary notion of the Westphalian state system that has come to define the modern nation-state entity. Accordingly, the investigation employs contemporary border theory to examine how the responsibilities and obligations of SGYFNs, the Government of Yukon, and the Government of Canada can solve Aboriginal boundary issues to develop a sustainable Arctic economy in the 21st century, which is on the verge of unprecedented opportunity. As such, it takes transnational pipeline projects in developing countries as the basis of a trans-territorial model within the Canadian context, before concluding that it is equitable, lawful, and fair to provide incentives to reluctant Yukon First Nations to consent to pipeline development projects on Settlement Land.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.546
Threshold uncertainty score0.902

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.008
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.269 · 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Aboriginal Economic DevelopmentSame topicArctic and Russian Policy StudiesFrench-language works237,207