Introduction: indigenous self-governance in the Arctic States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The theme of this special issue is indigenous self-governance in Arctic states.A common characteristic of the states that are partly located in the Arctic -Canada, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Russia, Sweden, USA -is that they all have indigenous peoples, and all have some form of self-government.There has been relatively little research on the similarities and differences between the sub-state autonomy structures within the Arctic states from a political science perspective (although with important exceptions, see below).This is somewhat surprising given the growing interest in the Arctic region during the last 15 years, where some of these autonomous units play an increasingly important role.This special issue asks how different are these self-governing units?How did they evolve into their current form?Do they have a distinct Arctic indigenous character? 1 Sub-state units in the Arctic have different kinds and degrees of political autonomy within the states of which they are part.Some -the Faroe Islands (non-indigenous people) and Greenland -have significant political autonomy and could in principle opt for independence within a relatively short time.Others -Indigenous peoples in Alaska, Canada and Russia -have a degree of autonomy within the structures of the constitution, which do not always fit neatly within these same constitutional structures.Others yet again -Sámi in Finland, Norway and Sweden -have political autonomy through nonterritorial based representation, which go beyond the Arctic areas.This special issue delves into the reasons for the differences and similarities between the political autonomy arrangements of these sub-state units in the Arctic.The cases are quite different.They include territorial vs non-territorial autonomy (however, some contributions to this special issue argue that the standard model of non-territorial governance does not apply), extensive autonomy vs. limited autonomy, different degrees of fit with formal state structures, Indigenous groups aiming for formal independence vs. aiming for autonomy and influence within their state structures.The population of the Faroe Islands is not an Indigenous people.Whether this has made a difference in the way CONTACT
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.003 |
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".