Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1942, Canadian and ameriCan governments agreed on the necessity to increase Canada's administrative, scientific, and technical competence in the Arctic to match that of other Arctic nations, which in 1945, resulted in an act of parliament that created the Arctic Institute of North America (AINA) (Parkin, 1966).In 1984, AINA began publishing Arctic, a multidisciplinary, quarterly journal with a mandate to spread awareness and communicate information about the Arctic and the activities of the institute more widely (MacDonald, 2005).In 1987, AINA produced a document which outlined a new mission to recognize the significance of the information industry and to provide Northerners with accurate information.From this, a distinct newsletter, Information North, was published.In 1997, the newsletter was brought into Arctic as a separate non-peer reviewed essay section called InfoNorth (MacDonald, 2005).This essay presents the results of a data survey of InfoNorth to characterize the contents of the section and evaluate opportunities for building greater diversity in authorship and content.At present, essays in InfoNorth are usually received as unsolicited submissions and published at the discretion of the editor.This journal section does not include analytical research results that would require review; for example, the essays are descriptive pieces, including short observations, personal experiences, interviews, and histories of notable people.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".