The evolution of local engagement and the mode of knowledge production in Arctic research: 2011–2020
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Community-based approaches have received considerable attention in Arctic research discourse over the last couple of decades with some claims of a new research paradigm taking shape within this region. Here, we sought to empirically test if Arctic research has been transformed by an increased involvement of local people in the 10 years following the end of the time period examined in Brunet et al. (N.D. Brunet, G.M. Hickey, and M.M. Humphries. 2014. The evolution of local participation and the mode of knowledge production in Arctic research. Ecology and Society, 19(2): 69. doi:10.5751/ ES-06641-190269), where trends from 1965 to 2010 were explored. We used a quantitative assessment framework to conduct an analysis of all research articles appearing between 2011 and 2020 in the journal Arctic. We found no significant changes in local engagement over this time period nor clear indications of a paradigm shift, despite policy changes supporting self-determination in research in some jurisdictions. We found that, in general, trends from the 2014 study held true for the 2011–2020 time period with a few minor distinctions. We discuss key themes that have emerged from this study, namely some promising authorship trends, the continued role of certain disciplines in leading the push towards meaningful local engagement and the contributions of climate change research to local leadership in research.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".