Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article is a critical study of the planning and design process of the Sustaining Arctic Observing Network (SAON). SAON, in its ambition to build a comprehensive, pan-Arctic monitoring system, seeks to integrate all relevant scientific and environmental monitoring sites in the Arctic, guided by an ethic of inclusion regarding the knowledge of indigenous Arctic peoples (KIAP). It is argued that the logics of inclusion in play, paradoxically, risks limiting the capacity for Arctic indigenous peoples to control their knowledge and its uses, to monitor the activities and outputs of SAON itself, and to appropriate the SAON system and its data for uses they control. This article also suggests an alternative approach: rather than place KIAP within SAON, it calls for planners to consider establishing knowledge relations between SAON and KIAP so that the distinct status of KIAP—in a position of exteriority to the comprehensive monitoring system—is acknowledged. Within these knowledge relations, differences in the production of knowledge can be effectively recognized, a site can be created for reviewing SAON’s monitoring work by local communities and practices, and strategies for open, adaptable data systems for local users can be established.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it