Mining, Harvesting And Decision Making In Nunavut: A Case Study of Uranium Mining in Baker Lake
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite a growing dependence on the capitalist economy, many Inuit communities in Nunavut continue to rely a great deal on harvesting to satisfy a variety of economic, social and cultural needs. While wage labour employment at mines and other extractive projects may provide income to purchase the equipment and supplies necessary for harvesting, they also threaten and undermine the viability of harvesting activities, primarily by damaging local ecosystems - and therefore the wildlife resources upon which harvesting is based. The coexistence of these two forms of economic activity is dependent upon the ability of Inuit, especially Elders, to participate in decisions regarding mining. The Nunavut Land Claims Agreement has created a variety of mechanisms, including Inuit Qaujimatuqangit studies, Inuit Impact and Benefit Agreements and consultations, which enable Inuit to exert control over what type of mining activities proceed in their homeland. However, a case study of Areva Resources Canada Inc.'s proposal to mine uranium near Baker Lake reveals that the manner in which these mechanisms are utilized does not always facilitate meaningful input from entire communities. Community consultation meetings - the most prominent method of soliciting Inuit input and commentary for mining projects - suffer from barriers to participation. While this may be indicative of a need to rethink the manner in which consultations take place, an overhaul of the bureaucratic structures involved in community consultations will take time and considerable research. More immediate action is required to facilitate participation in dialogues surrounding contemporary proposals for major mining projects in Nunavut, including Areva's proposal.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.030 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".