Aboriginal People and Resource Co-Management: The Inuvialuit of the Western Arctic and Resource Co-Management under a Land Claims Settlement
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
"The Inuvialuit Final Agreement (IFA) as enacted under the Western Arctic (Inuvialuit) Claims Settlement Act (1984) set in place five management bodies for co-management of resources in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region (ISR) of Northwest Territories and Yukon. ISR is a mix of private Inuvialuit land held in common, and crown land. Fish and wildlife resources are co-managed by Inuvialuit and governments of Canada, Northwest Territories and Yukon together with agencies of United States and other nations. \n \n "Co-management initiatives are reviewed to illustrate roles and activities of co-management bodies created pursuant to the IFA. Potential problem areas are discussed with respect to development-conservation dichotomy as enshrined in IFA. Complications arising from impending settlement of native land claims contiguous to and overlapping with ISR are also discussed with respect to the need for integration of co-management mechanisms. \n \n "Preservation of cultural identity through meaningful participation in management and conservation of arctic wildlife and its habitat is explored with concerns raised and recommendations given for future of successful and culturally appropriate co-management of resources."
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it