Differentiating the Canadian North for Coherent Infrastructure Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada’s northern and Arctic environment poses significant challenges for infrastructure development. The region is characterized by unique ecosystems, extreme climatic conditions and a sparse population, which are factors that have inhibited infrastructure development in the past. Nevertheless, various practitioners, academics and northerners have emphasized the need for reliable and safe connections between north and south and within the North. The lack of infrastructure is a major impediment to the well-being of northerners who lack access to essential services, such as clean drinking water (Patrick 2011) or safe and reliable roadways. Infrastructure Canada (2018) noted that the current southern-based “one-size fits all” northern infrastructure approach is inefficient because northern conditions and challenges often do not respond to policies that are conceived in the south. Currently, infrastructure projects are often conducted on a one-off basis without establishing broader connections in the northern region. Thus, this paper draws on the Canadian Northern Corridor (CNC) concept (Fellows et al. 2020) as a solution to deliver much- needed infrastructure to northern communities. At the same time, this paper cautions that it is critical to recognize the diversity of the Canadian North and it is vital to consider northern Indigenous practices that can inform infrastructure development for a CNC. This paper offers a discussion of Canada’s northern diversity by exploring the relevance of Hamelin’s nordicity index (1979) as a policy tool to better understand and respond to the distinct challenges and opportunities across the Canadian North and Arctic. Although the CNC concept reflects a pan-Canadian approach, it strongly advocates for the recognition, participation and inclusion of all northern stake- and rights-holders to inform future infrastructure development and to avoid past mistakes. The CNC could thus offer a coherent northern infrastructure framework that addresses the shortcomings of made-in-Ottawa policies for the Canadian North and Arctic.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".