The institutional Representation of the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut: How parliamentary discourses inform the framing of representative claims of a parliament
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nunavut is the newest territory in Canada; it was created in 1999. It is distinguished from other Canadian territories or provinces in that an indigenous people – the Inuit – represent the majority of its population. Its parliament, the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut, functions through consensus, contrary to most Canadian legislatures. It presents itself as having integrated the notion of Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ) into its organising framework. This thesis seeks to analyse how this integration influences the institutional representation of the Legislative Assembly. To do so, it mobilises the representative claim theory advanced by Saward (2006; 2010) to discuss the role of non-elected representatives, allowing the investigation of a parliament as a representation. The context of multicultural Canada is key in understanding the context of the creation of Nunavut. Multiculturalism in Canada explains the rationale for the creation of Nunavut from a federal perspective. But, for territorial politicians, the territory is an expression of the Inuit indigeneity. This expression can be found in the Legislative Assembly’s debates where its members constantly underline the importance of Inuit traditions and customs as well as IQ. This notion is further analysed in this dissertation considering its importance not only in framing the parliament, but also in its use in debates especially concerning the environment, education, and care. On those topics, Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) are using IQ in efforts to promote Inuit knowledge in those policy areas. The thesis also notes a paradox, which is that there is an agreement on IQ’s importance but not on its definition. The project answers this paradox by demonstrating that IQ is a representative claim of Inuit indigeneity. The thesis uses this finding by demonstrating that MLAs are using IQ to reinforce the claim where the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut stands for the Inuit’s indigenous identity.
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 | 0.017 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.043 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".