What Is Happening Where? An Evaluation of Social Science Research Trends in Nunavut (2004-2019)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many Inuit feel they are not benefitting from research activities that come from colonial research licensing practices and laws enabling state control over research. In Nunavut, research licensing also helped to increase community engagement in research. The Nunavut Research Institute (NRI), based in Iqaluit, Nunavut manages research and issues physical/natural, health, and social science research licenses in the Territory. In partnership with the NRI, we examined social science and Inuit knowledge research licensed between 2004-2019, to understand the scope of research trends in Nunavut. Using the 568 project summaries from social science research licenses, thematic content analysis was conducted to: i) identify research topics in social science and Inuit knowledge projects; ii) determine frequency and diversity of topics according to leadership, location, and timeframe; iii) develop new metrics to improve tracking of research topics; and, iv) contribute to the development of a Nunavut research portal making NRI research applications/reports public. Through this analysis we learned that social science research in Nunavut increased over time. Research projects are predominantly led by Canadian academics, with the highest concentration of research being in Iqaluit. Social science research is mainly focused on cultural topics, conducted using interviews, and shared in peer-reviewed journal articles. Community engagement has also increased over time in Nunavut, and research intensity appears to be connected to the availability of research-related capacity and infrastructure in a community. This research is an important starting point in making research trends more accessible to Nunavummiut (people of Nunavut), and more useable by decision-makers regarding research intensity and potential fatigue in some Nunavut communities. Long term, improving tracking of metrics such as funding sources and reporting mechanisms can contribute to policy reform and to advancing the NRI licensing database. This is an initial step contributing to Nunavut-specific approaches to Inuit self-determination in research.
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 | 0.075 | 0.106 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".