The natural resource management in Nunavut and Greenland – a perspective through historical institutionalism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article compares the self-government system in Greenland in Denmark and territorial governance in Nunavut, Canada in relation to the management of natural resources through the perspective of historical institutionalism. Both territories have undergone processes of re-empowerment, and possess major assets of natural resources, and the struggle for self-determination has triggered their metropolitan states (Denmark and Finland) and regional governments to consider some form of self-government. However, two different solutions have appeared due to gradual development through path dependency as legislation and form of government. Nunavut is a territory within the Canadian federal construction, based on Indigenous claims, while Greenland is a self-governing territory within the Danish unitary state. The land claims in Canada have given Nunavut some influence in the management of its natural resources, while Greenland has taken control of its subterranean resources through extended self-government implemented in 2009. This article will highlight the resource policy similarities and differences of the two territories via three potential explanatory factors: historical background, self-government, and the management of natural resources as a point of departure. The findings show that both regions have similarities in historical background and the management of natural resources, but there are also significant differences in how local authorities have addressed mining projects.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".