Mobilization of Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit for polar bear co-management: qualitative analysis of a Nunavut Wildlife Management Board public hearing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inclusion of Indigenous knowledge in polar bear ( nanuq [Inuktut]; Ursus maritimus) conservation and management decisions remains an enduring challenge. The Nunavut Wildlife Management Board (NWMB) held a series of public hearings on polar bear management from 2007 to 2018 that featured substantial contributions of Inuit knowledge, observations, and perspectives on different polar bear subpopulations. Qualitative analysis of those hearing transcripts offers a rigorous method to access that documented knowledge and to support its meaningful incorporation into decision-making. Here, we apply this approach to the NWMB's 2013 Foxe Basin polar bear public hearing as a case study, identifying three primary themes: (1) there are more polar bears now than in the past, (2) polar bears are entering communities and endangering human lives, and (3) Inuit feel their knowledge is not being adequately utilized in decision-making. We demonstrate how such analysis can systematically and transparently mobilize Inuit knowledge, and assess how these particular themes might contribute to both the substance and the efficacy of polar bear co-management decisions.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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".