Ethnofederalism and Indigenous self-determination in Northern Canada and the Russian Federation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores the impacts of ethnofederalism on the efforts of Indigenous peoples in Canada and the Russian Federation to self-determine in regional contexts that are politically dominated by ethnic groups who constitute national minorities. We compare the evolution of Indigenous governance institutions in Quebec and Sakha (Yakutia), asking whether Indigenous peoples in these jurisdictions have benefitted from the efforts of the titular nationalities (the Quebecois and Sakha) to enhance their own autonomy within their respective federations. We consider whether these constituent units’ governments, as representatives of larger ethnic minorities who have struggled to assert autonomy within a federal system, are more sympathetic to the territorial and political aspirations of smaller Indigenous groups. The article contributes to a dearth of scholarship comparing the efforts of Indigenous peoples in Canada and Russia to achieve greater self-determination. We conclude that while the Inuit of Nunavik in northern Quebec have made significant progress in realizing autonomy, they have been constrained by the political environment in the province. Indigenous peoples in Sakha (Yakutia) have made less progress in terms of securing political autonomy but have benefitted from an alliance with the Sakha in the face of centralizing tendencies at the federal level.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".