Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter examines the employment of Inuit women in Nunavik nickel mines, drawing on interviews with key informants, employment statistics, and interviews with ten women workers. The chapter juxtaposes Inuit women’s perspectives with the literature about Inuit women in mining, the perspectives of mining representatives, and employment statistics. In contrast with the academic literature that positions Inuit women as victims of mining, Inuit women reported many benefits from mining work, including financial security, social relationships, and, for some who had moved south, the ability to maintain ties with community. However, few women in the study were able to maintain long-term secure employment in mining due to numerous challenges, including pregnancy, childcare, and employment mobility. Employment data underscore this reality, showing how Inuit women are segmented into the lowest-paid and least-desirable positions. Mining company representatives, meanwhile, emphasized individual success stories at the expense of these larger trends, while offering no clear vision of how to address the challenge of childcare that keeps many Inuit women out of the industry. Interviews with workers, meanwhile, suggest that greater support for women workers and flexibility around childcare would allow more Inuit women to benefit from mining employment.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".