Inuit perspectives on climate change and well-being: a comparison between urban and remote communities in the Arctic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The generational knowledge of weather and climate is a foundational component of subsistence for Inuit in the Arctic. This knowledge is now challenged by the reality of anthropogenic climate change at a pace that, for Inuit, is impeding fundamental aspects of life in a single generation. To better understand how climate change moderates relationships between Inuit communities and the ecosystem services they rely on, the literature on how climate change is perceived in the circumpolar Arctic was systematically reviewed. The perspectives of Inuit as described in 75 studies were contrasted with those queried from a series of semi-structured interviews with 16 residents of Iqaluit, Nunavut. Within the literature, the themes most frequently mentioned in remote communities were concerns arising about the environment, community, and health. However, the inverse was true for studies that focused on urban communities. Participants from the semi-structured interviews described how colonialism still shapes knowledge translation, which has lasting effects on Arctic climate literacy for Inuit and non-Inuit. As such, an academic knowledge gap in the colonial context in which climate change operates was identified, which requires a way forward that can lead to improvements in the social context for Inuit.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".