Labrador Inuit Population Movements and Inequalitiesin the Land Claims Era
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The importance of community relocation experiences for aboriginal land claims movements is well documented; the role played by successful land claims in prompting ongoing out-migration is not. Data collected in 2011 on the lives of migrants are used to test three hypotheses: H1, Inuit leaving the land claims area for a nearby nonaboriginal city show markedly different social outcomes based on the length of time since migration; H2, these social outcomes map onto patterns of intergroup boundaries in their new communities; and H3, both of these outcomes are better explained by migration patterns after the land claims than by the ethnic/racial exclusion that has been the focus of past research on inequality in the region. This analysis takes advantage of social network techniques used to study hard-to-reach populations, showing how these methods can be used to address broader questions of community structure and cohesion during rapid social change. Conclusions focus on the experiences of migrants on the margins of sending and receiving communities and what they can tell us about the role played by aboriginal land claims in the culture politics of industrial resource extraction.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".