Survey of living conditions in the Arctic: Inuit, Saami and the indigenous peoples of Chukotka (SLICA). Arctic 2002; 55: 310 5. (page number not for citation purpose
Bibliographic record
Abstract
decades the scientific community has expressed concern about the vulnerability of the Arctic and its residents to environmental, social, and economic changes…[Recent] research results show that arctic climate and ecosystems are indeed changing substantially with impacts on people living in and outside the Arctic. ” The scientists listed as the first key question, “How are the rapid social, political, economic and environmental changes occurring in the Arctic today affecting the people there? ” (ARCUS, 1998:3). Delegates to the 1998 Inuit Circumpolar Conference (ICC) passed a resolution supporting an international survey of living conditions in the Arctic. The resolution noted, “Rapid social change characterises all indigenous peoples of the Arctic…There is a need to document and compare the present state of living conditions and the development among the indigenous peoples of the Arctic.” This essay presents a comparative study of living con-ditions among the Inuit and Saami peoples of the United
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".