Adapting to Environmental Change: Assessing the Vulnerability of Inuvialuit Communities to Infrastructure Risks Associated with Climate Change
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is growing concern among Canadian Inuit about the impacts on the environment from global changes such as climate change. To date, the focus on this subject has been oriented on biophysical changes and impacts in the environment and little attention has been given to the potential vulnerability of community infrastructure. Research on vulnerability and adaptation to climate change has most often taken the form of impact studies with the purpose of estimating the physical impacts of climate change (Parry and Carter, 1998; Fankhauser et al., 1999). Adaptations were then considered as an end cost of climate change. However, it is now becoming increasingly recognized that initiatives to identify adaptation needs and to improve adaptive capacity start with an assessment of vulnerability of the system of interest (Ford and Smit, 2004). This draws on insights from political ecology scholarship which shows that access to resources, equity, livelihoods and the political and socio-economic conditions are important considerations in the assessment of adaptive capacity, and therefore vulnerability (Blaikie et al., 1994; Adger and Kelly, 1999; Bohle, 2001; Smit and Pilifosova, 2001; O’Brien et al., 2004).
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".