The role of governance and knowledge systems in adaptation to climate change in Hopedale, Nunatsiavut
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis assesses the role of governance and knowledge systems, including formal and informal institutions in the process of adaptation to climate change. Based on an assessment of vulnerabilities in the community of Hopedale, Nunatsiavut, this research identifies and describes the influence of institutions and systems of knowledge and governance pertaining to natural resource management in Hopedale, across multiple levels, in facilitating or constraining adaptive capacity to deal with climate change. Institutions and governance systems provide Hopedale residents with capacity to deal with climate and other changes, through their representation in natural resource management decision making arrangements such as the Torngat Management Boards as a result of the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement. Other interactions within and between these institutions such as the differences in governance approaches between Nunatsiavut and Provincial institutions have the effect of hindering or reducing capacity. Ultimately, the interactions and processes within and across institutions and systems of governance play an important role in the process of enhancing adaptive capacity and reducing Hopedale residents' vulnerability to climate and other change.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".