MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7039321786

<em>Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit</em> and Adaptive Co-Management: A Case Study of Narwhal Co-Management in Arctic Bay, Nunavut

2009· article· en· W7039321786 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueScholars Commons (Wilfrid Laurier University) · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicEngineering and Agricultural Innovations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArcticTraditional knowledgeSociology of scientific knowledgeKnowledge-based systemsWildlife managementResource (disambiguation)Resource management (computing)Government (linguistics)Adaptive managementProcess (computing)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since 2001 the community of Arctic Bay, located on north-western Baffin Island, in Nunavut, Canada, has been experimenting with a new approach to narwhal management—‘community-based’ narwhal managemet. The new management system has developed some decision-making powers to the local Hunters’ and Trappers’ Organization, who are empowered/required to draft by-laws to govern the hunt. Community-based narwhal management links local, regional, territorial, and national actors and agencies in a co-management arrangement that draws its powers from, and is steered by, the Nunavut Final Agreement (1993), the comprehensive land claims agreement between the Inuit of Nunavut and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada.\nA primary purpose of the Nunavut Final Agreement, and the institutions created or empowered thereby, is to maximize Inuit participation in decision-making, and ensure that Inuit traditional knowledge (Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit) steers governance. In the field of resource and environmental management, the presumed benefits of knowledge integration (combining/comparing traditional knowledge with Western scientific knowledge) have been constrained by the fact that Western wildlife management institutions have co-evolved with Western scientific knowledge and do not easily accommodate alternate knowledge systems. However, knowledge integration has been recognized as a fundamental purpose of collaborative management, and a critical determinant of adaptive capacity.\nIs Nunavut’s community-based narwhal management process integrating Inuit and Western knowledge meaningfully? Is knowledge integration building capacity to buffer change and adapt to changing circumstances. Challenges and risks associated with knowledge integration have not been adequately assessed, and collaborative narwhal management has not been understood in relation to its broader temporal and socio-ecological context. This research, which draws heavily upon interviews conducted with resource-users and representatives of local, territorial and state management agencies, suggests that although devolution of some decision-making powers to community-level actors under the terms of the Nunavut Final Agreement is enabling knowledge integration, and adaptive capacity in turn, the presumed benefits of both have been slow to materialize.

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.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.667
Threshold uncertainty score0.736

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.198 · 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