Wildlife Management Summit Report November 6–8, 2017 Ottawa, Canada.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Inuit Circumpolar Council (ICC) hosted the Wildlife Management Summit that took place on November 6 to 8, 2017 in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada to deliver on the commitment made in Article 40 of the Kitigaaryuit Declaration, as adopted at the 2014 ICC General Assembly in Inuvik, which, “directs ICC to plan and host an Inuit summit on wildlife management.” The ICC Wildlife Management Summit’s goal was to examine the influence that policies (international, regional, national instruments), environmental change, public perceptions, and changing social economic conditions in the Arctic are having on Arctic wildlife and Inuit food security. The Summit was further directed by the Alaskan Inuit Food Security Conceptual Framework: How to Assess the Arctic From an Inuit Perspective. The report, which reflects the views and knowledge of Alaskan Inuit, emphasizes the need to build stronger co-management structures in order to support food security. The following key actions were put forward by summit participants: -- ICC establish and support a Circumpolar Inuit Wildlife Committee (CIWC) whose mission will be to collaboratively, cooperatively and inclusively preserve and protect Inuit cultural rights to food sovereignty by providing a unified pan-Arctic Inuit voice. -- ICC establish and support a Circumpolar Inuit Wildlife Network (CIWN) in order to support information sharing, learning and communication about Inuit rights, wildlife management and food sovereignty within the network and with the CIWC. -- That an interim steering committee be formed immediately to develop a strategy for CIWC to be proposed to the General Assembly of ICC in July 2018.
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) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".