Digging sustainability: scaling and sectoring of sovereignty in Greenland and Nunavut mining discourses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
‘Sustainability’ is often articulated in the Greenland and Nunavut mining discourses where the exploitation of mineral resources is perceived as a key component in their respective continuous nation-building processes. The concept is, to some degree, contested by Indigenous definitions, but the Brundtland Report’s 1987 description of sustainable development is generally the main point of reference, hence reproducing the hegemonic perception. By digging deeper into key mining documents and public hearings regarding the proposed Citronen Fiord zinc mine and the Mary River iron mine, this chapter shows how the referent object is placed on different scales and sectors within the two discourses. Whereas the national economy is given precedence in Greenland in the paramount aim for independence, the local social sustainability gets more attention in the Nunavut mining discourse, which further allows more room for disagreement. This reflects the different directions of their respective postcolonial developments, where Greenland is described as a ‘country’ on the way to ‘independence’, while Nunavut is a ‘territory’ with the declared goal of ‘devolution’. Denmark and Canada are largely left out of the respective communication, but in the few instances they are mentioned it is clear how sovereignty is central to the question of who gets to decide what to sustain. While Nunavut loyally respects Canada’s sovereignty and explicitly states that the mining projects sustain Canadian sovereignty in the North, Danish interference in the Citronen Fiord project triggers postcolonial concerns in Greenland.
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 | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.034 | 0.055 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".