Bibliographic record
Abstract
Forud for Arktisk Råds tilblivelse i 1996 foregik der et omfattende arbejde mellem staterne, og ikke mindst af de arktiske oprindelige folk. Inuit Circumpolar Council (ICC), som repræsenterer Inuit i Kalaallit Nunaat (Grønland), Canada, Alaska og Chukotka (Rusland), spillede en central rolle i kampen for, at Arktisk Råd kom til at inkludere oprindelige folk ved bordet. ICC’s arkiver giver et grundigt indblik drøftelserne internt i ICC, og mellem staterne og de andre oprindelige folk. Arktisk Råds unikke struktur med otte stater og seks oprindelige folks organisationer siddende om bordet, fuldt ud deltagende i alle beslutningsprocesser blev således udviklet gennem års forhandlinger. ICC og de andre oprindelige folks organisationer har fortsat deres aktive bidrag gennem de seneste års krise i Arktisk Råd, og peger på styrkelsen af oprindelige folks deltagelse som en af nøglerne til et fortsat aktivt Arktisk Råd, til gavn for alle arktiske folk. Abstract in EnglishThe Arctic Council – an International CollaborationThe establishment of the Arctic Council in 1996 was preceded by extensive work between states, and not least by the Arctic Indigenous Peoples. The Inuit Circumpolar Council (ICC), representing the Inuit of Kalaallit Nunaat (Greenland), Canada, Alaska and Chukotka (Russia), played a central role in the struggle for the Arctic Council to include Indigenous peoples at the table. The ICC archives provide a thorough insight into the discussions within the ICC, and between the states and the other Indigenous peoples. The Arctic Council’s unique structure, with eight states and six Indigenous peoples’ organisations around the table, fully participating in all decision-making processes, was thus developed over years of negotiations. The ICC and the other Indigenous peoples’ organisations have continued their active contributions throughout the Arctic Council crisis of recent years, pointing to the strengthening of Indigenous peoples’ participation as one of the keys to a continued active and Arctic Council, benefitting all Arctic peoples.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".