Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Polar Bear Co-Management in a Changing Arctic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis examines polar bear (Ursus maritimus) co-management in the Canadian Arctic, with a particular focus on the contributions of Inuit traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) to published literature about polar bear. A mixed methods approach was used including a scoping review of literature about Inuit TEK of polar bear and an event ethnography of an Inuit initiative to support the generation and transmission of TEK. The results of the scoping review show that published Inuit TEK about polar bear has contributed to an understanding of polar bear ecology and management for some polar bear subpopulations in the Canadian Arctic, but less is known about polar bear TEK for longer-term monitoring purposes and in relation to Inuit cultural values and beliefs. The findings of the event ethnography are that community-governed cultural programs can contribute to the partial generation and transmission of TEK among Inuit, notably for those who may not have the opportunity to do so in their daily lives. These findings are intended to inform future research about polar bear TEK by identifying knowledge gaps, and contribute to a better understanding of the role that cultural programming can play in TEK generation and transmission.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| 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".