MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7038673812

Inuit Nunangat Regional Overlaps: Reciprocal Harvesting & Wildlife Management Agreements

2021· article· en· W7038673812 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueeYLS (Yale Law School) · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMollusks and Parasites Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDevolution (biology)Government (linguistics)Corporate governanceHuman settlementAdministration (probate law)WildlifeAgency (philosophy)Wildlife management
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article after a brief introduction which describes the Inuit of Canada and their administrative segmentation by the territorial and provincial boundaries of the Yukon Territory, Northwest Territory, Nunavut Territory, Province of Quebec and the Province of Labrador. While arguably the Inuit are also considered to have traditionally used the northern regions of other provinces this study will focus on the present governance organizational framework assigned via Inuit Land Claims with Canada. The formation of Canada in 1867 and the subsequent partitioning of the Yukon and Nunavut from the Northwest Territory, and the addition of the Northern Quebec (Ungava Bay Peninsula) in 1912 to Quebec, and the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador joining Canadian Confederation in 1949 delineated the Inuit within these provincial and territorial jurisdictions in what had once been considered by the Inuit one large all inclusive contiguous land and sea home area they refer to as Nunangat.\nAnd, so it is that as the Inuit were brought in (or ordered) of the land from their nomadic and semi-nomadic hunter-gatherer existence, they came under the administration of federal and respective territorial and provincial governments and divided from their fellow Inuit across these boundaries. Thus, as Inuit have become more organized and schooled in the ways of the colonial/post-colonial administration they have begun through a process of devolution to seek the autonomy of governance requisite to pursue self-governance and self-determination. And to this the Government of Canada has been responding through consultations and negotiations, entering into Land Claims Agreements with each of the four respective sub-groups of the Nunangat. The land claims are with Nunavik (1975), Inuvialuit (1984), Nunavut (1993) and Nunatsiavut (2005).\nThe Inuit Land Claims are preliminarily identified in Section 2. However, they are only one component on the Inuit devolutionary path to self-governance and self-determination, and this section also further provides a review of the process and progress of devolution within each of the respective territories and regions within the Inuit Nunangat of Canada. In Section 3, the Inuit Nunangat as a whole is examined with respect to harvesting and wildlife management which is inextricably linked to the culture and survival of Inuit people. It commences in Section 3(A) with a review of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement 1975 (JBNQA) was the first major and landmark agreement between the Government of Canada and indigenous peoples in Canada. The JBNQA created a series of governance mechanisms proving the signatories, i.e. Inuit, Cree, and in 1978 the Naskapi (under the NEQA), the governance tools to continue their subsistence practices. Central to these mechanisms were commitments to create a co-management regime between neighboring indigenous claims settlements for the area's wildlife, but it was not until the other neighboring Inuit regions signed their respective land claims agreements that overlap clauses and agreements intra-Inuit and intra-indigenous began to be formalized. These are reviewed and discussed in Section 3 (B). As will be seen it is a complex system of multiple levels of government and Inuit organizations tailored together in a fashion of co-management that the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (ITK), the national voice of the Inuit Nunangat, must navigate inter-regionally within the respective Inuit land claims, federal departments and agencies, along with provincial, territorial and other indigenous entities composite in the harvesting and wildlife management governance framework.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.491
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.218 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeYLS (Yale Law School)Same topicMollusks and Parasites StudiesFrench-language works237,207