MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6986311268

Patrolling North of 60: Military Infrastructure in Canada’s Arctic Communities

2023· other· en· W6986311268 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship (California Digital Library) · 2023
Typeother
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCell Image Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPatrollingIndigenousArcticSovereigntyThe arcticSafeguarding
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With their signature red sweaters and bright red .308 bolt action rifles, Canadian Rangers have become an established military presence in some of Canada’s most remote regions. Originally established as a symbolic representation of Canada’s sovereignty on the Northwest coast at the start of the Cold War in 1947, their presence in the Arctic functioned to protect Canada from any potential Northern invasion. Today, Rangers act as scouts and guides in the arctic meant to alarm the military of any suspicious activity, without actively engaging in combat. Rangers are expected to join the organization equipped with their own gear and already trained in surviving and navigating on the land. Located in almost 70 communities across the Northwest Territories, Nunavut, the Yukon, and Atlin, BC, Canadian Rangers in the 1st Canadian Ranger Patrol Group (1 CRPG) are viewed as a critical part of the arctic defense strategy. Sinceii\nthe Organization’s inception in 1947, the employment of local and Indigenous personnel has been advertised as a cost-effective way to bring money, skills, and employment to the north while simultaneously securing Canadian sovereignty in the region Due to their geographical location and the unique living conditions, most Canadian Ranger patrols are comprised of Indigenous personnel who use skills accrued over generations of living on the land to do their work. Because Rangers are expected to come to the organization fully trained, with extensive knowledge of “living on the land,” their traditional knowledge is re-branded as the foundation of arctic military training.\nSimultaneously examining the experiences of both Indigenous and non-Indigenous personnel, my research examines how Indigeneity becomes a key factor in the Canadian state’s strategy to consolidate national sovereignty in the arctic. Focusing on 1 CRPG, my research aims to expand an understanding of the Canadian arctic military landscape. Examining military infrastructure through the everyday, lived experiences of Indigenous and non-Indigenous personnel within communities and at the headquarters, this research is informed by settler studies and critical Indigenous studies approach to studying how ideas of race, whiteness, and indigeneity are constructed from a colonial, military perspective. As Ranger identity is constructed from the fabric of colonial ideology, the project explores how Indigeneity is reformulated under a bureaucratic, military gaze.\nIn the twenty-first century, the Canadian Rangers have emerged from the shadows to become a visible example of diversity and inclusion in the Canadian Armed Forces. Challenging this, this dissertation argues how the progressive representation of the organization hides its truly settler colonial identity. Using ethnographic research to examine how Rangers are recruited, administered, and paid, this project shows how settler colonialism relies on Indigenous\niiipeople to establish Canadian state sovereignty in the Arctic, doing so under the guise of a humanitarian ethic that scripts Indigenous people as needing assistance into modern life. Recognized as a people with a relevant culture and the necessary skills to manage the Arctic region, but paradoxically imagined as in need of state assistance, Indigenous people find themselves caught between their own economic needs and the ambitions of the settler state. This dissertation examines how settler soldiers participate in the colonial management of the Arctic through the Rangers. It focuses on how settler soldiers construct themselves in a white settler imaginary as a people who brings civilization to the Arctic.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.439

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0310.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.001
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.189 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship (California Digital Library)→Same topicCell Image Analysis Techniques→French-language works237,207→