ᓄᓇᕗᑦ - Our land : on policies and guidelines regarding sustainable community design and Inuit self-determination in Nunavut
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Canadian Arctic is home to many isolated and remote communities which continue to thrive despite many social, economic, and ecological challenges. Housing insecurity is one of the biggest challenges communities confront and this was explored in a case study of Iqaluktuuttiaq, Nunavut. The lenses through which housing insecurity was explored were sustainable development and Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit. After the background research and literature review, 14 semi-structured interviews consisting of 22 interviewees were conducted. Interviewees were asked to describe their connection to the housing crisis and what type of support the community needed to alleviate the lack of housing. The analysis of the interviews indicated five themes: (1) Housing Related Challenges for Tenants, (2) Tenant Issues with Regards to How the Unit Affects Them, (3) Tenant Interactions with Relevant Organisations, (4) Housing Crisis Effect on People, and (5) Perceptions and Feelings Expressed Towards Housing from Tenants. The results show that many interviewees believed that building additional houses was the biggest solution to the housing crisis, followed by educational programs, funding for unit maintenance and repair, and transparency from the local housing organisation. New housing development should include tenant and local stakeholder feedback, such as the housing associations who maintain the public housing stock in a community. The main lessons from this study are that all levels of government and relevant organisations need to cohesively create policies and programs which help current public housing tenants maintain their units, and know who to reach out to for help, and to continue to push Inuit self-determination and Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit in planning policies and design guidelines. Further research for creating sustainable and Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit focused housing is needed in order to understand the social, economic, and ecological impacts that a community-focused planning approach can have on high-Arctic communities.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".