Aboriginal People and Resource Co-Management: The Inuvialuit of the Western Arctic and Resource Co-Management under a Land Claims Settlement
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".