Relationship to the Land (Use Planning Provisions): Mapping the Limitations of the Settler Imagination in an Arctic Anthropocene
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While legal scholars have applauded the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement (NLCA), which was the largest Indigenous land claim in Canadian history, as a watershed moment in Indigenous self-determination, the central role that resource extraction played in the negotiation and the final agreement is underexplored within the broader context of the colonization of Inuit in Canada. This thesis analyzes the central role non-renewable resources have played in the colonization of Inuit, from the surveys of the Geological Survey of Canada to the negotiation of the NLCA and how the entire frame for the NLCA had been predetermined by the settler colonial government of Canada, defined by settler ontologies of land that are legally supported by the Doctrine of Discovery. The three content chapters explore the tension between critical posthumanism and Indigenous ontologies, research-creation as a novel research method for exploring the contours of map making within a colonial context, and inhumanism as a theory for understanding colonial expansion using surveys, arguing throughout that understanding settler knowledges and ontologies of land is critical to understanding colonization and extraction in Nunavut. As such, this thesis interrogates settler-colonial conceptions of land through maps, the histories of settler territorial expansion in the Eastern Arctic through geological surveys, and how Inuit and settler ontologies of land and nonhuman matter diverge to argue that we cannot understand waste issues in Canada’s Arctic without understanding the foundational role of settler expropriation of land through geology.
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 | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".