Inuit autonomy in the Canadian Arctic: comparing treaty federalism in Nunavut and Nunatsiavut
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When examining the institutional landscape in Canada’s Arctic regions, one thing that is particularly striking is the diversity of autonomy regimes that have emerged through the negotiation of treaties with Indigenous Peoples. This article contrasts the experiences of the Nunavut government (a public government administering a territory with an Inuit majority) and the Nunatsiavut government (an Inuit-only government nested within the province of Newfoundland and Labrador). What explains the development of these two different types of institutional arrangements that emerged out of similar processes of treaty negotiation? And what are the political consequences of these diverging paths? We first discuss the historical foundations of treaty-based Indigenous autonomy regimes in Northern Canada. We then argue that two factors are particularly relevant to understanding the different trajectories of Nunavut and Nunatsiavut. First is the timing of treaty negotiations, which opened different institutional possibilities at critical junctures, and second is the geopolitical context specific to the two regions. Lastly, we look at some of the political implications of these two models, focusing on the way identity is mediated and on the distinctive multilevel governance dynamics they induce.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".