Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter reports on the design research work carried out by the partnership Living in Northern Quebec: Mobilizing, Understanding, Imagining (Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council Canada • 2015–2021 • https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href=" https://www.habiterlenordquebecois.org/ "> www.habiterlenordquebecois.org/ ). This work aims to better understand the aspirations of the Inuit (in Nunavik) and Innu (in Nitassinan) communities with regard to the qualities and meanings of their living environments. Scholars and professionals (in architecture, urban design, planning, and geomorphology), along with Indigenous advocates and stakeholders, have highlighted the challenges faced by Northern communities as well as their social importance and physical scope while thinking of new ways to address them. Collaborative activities (including design and codesign) provided a “meeting space” where ontologies intersect, in order to reveal distinct and evolving worldviews. This chapter covers five themes: (1) the conceptual underpinnings involved in building a partnership space with Indigenous communities; (2) the collaborative design research approach developed and tested by the participants; (3) the idea of dwelling as territory and home, which helps tackling such concepts as the sense of place and the nomadic ideal; (4) an overview of the challenges facing an urbanizing North; and (5) a review of innovative student projects and research outcomes. The partnership has welcomed the collaboration of Indigenous communities in building trust and openly discussing housing with the Southerners. It has become increasingly clear that Innu and Inuit communities are confident in participating in the “re-situation” of their territories and the emergence of new territories of interaction and development on a renewed path to self-determination.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.041 | 0.017 |
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".