MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6888483520 · doi:10.20381/ruor-23605

Arctic Corridors and Northern Voices: governing marine transportation in the Canadian Arctic (Resolute, Nunavut community report)

2019· other· en· W6888483520 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Ottawa - Library · 2019
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArcticGovernment (linguistics)Circumpolar starLivelihoodThe arcticGeneral partnershipMarine conservationMarine habitatsMarine debris

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ship traffic in the Canadian Arctic nearly tripled between 1990 and 2015. The Government of Canada is developing a network of low-impact marine transportation corridors in the Arctic that encourages marine transportation traffic to use routes that pose less risk and minimize the impact on communities and the environment. The Low Impact Shipping Corridors will be a framework to guide future federal investments to support marine navigation safety in the North, including improved charting and increased hydrography, in partnership with Northerners. The corridors initiative is co-led by the Canadian Coast Guard, Transport Canada, and Canadian Hydrographic Service. Key considerations in the current prioritization of the Low Impact Shipping Corridors include identification of Inuit and Northerners’ perspectives on 1) the potential impact of marine vessels on marine areas used for cultural and livelihood activities, and on community members; and 2) potential management strategies for the corridors. This report reflects opinions gathered through participatory mapping, focus group discussions, and interviews with Resolute community members who were identified by local organizations as key knowledge holders. This report was validated by the research participants.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.483
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.178
Teacher spread0.168 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of Ottawa - LibraryFrench-language works237,207