Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines how Alaskan tribes are responding to the loss of territorial governance over lands conveyed under the 1971 Alaska Native Land Claims Settlement Act. Typically, governments have control over a place and a people, but this is not the case in Alaska where tribal governance is generally limited to authority over membership and not place. This paper explores the varied and creative efforts of Alaskan communities to reassert governance – to exercise fate control – over natural resources even in the absence of territorial sovereignty. Part I describes the historical context necessary to understand current land and resource governance issues in Alaska. Part II examines the range of options for strengthening local governance and overcome the obstacles that frustrate local control. Part III offers a case study focused on the efforts of Alaskan tribes within the Yukon River Intertribal Watershed Council (YRITWC), an international consortium of Yukon River communities, as it asserts rights to govern within the watershed. Part IV analyzes the Alaskan tribal experience, in particular the YRITWC’S governance efforts, through the lens of a “rights based approach” that treats tribes as sovereigns rather than stakeholders. In this study, land and property rights are discussed interchangeably to examine how non-Indigenous legal systems apportion rights and responsibilities associated with particular land. The term governance describes the ability to control, in this context to tax and to regulate. The notion of well-being is drawn from the Arctic Human Development framework that identifies fate control as a cornerstone measure of wellbeing and human development approach. 1
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".