Canadian Arctic Policy and Program Development and Inuit Recognition: A Neoliberal Governmentality Analysis of Canada's Northern Strategy and "The Missing Piece"
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2007, the Canadian government announced its commitment to the development of the Canadian North through launching Canada's Northern Strategy. The purpose of the Strategy was to address the issue of climate change and its associated effects of increased natural resource extraction and shipping activity in the Canadian Arctic region. Different from past federal government policy and program development initiatives in the Canadian Arctic, this Strategy appeared to make central Inuit voices by way of involving them in the four pillars that constituted the Strategy: Exercising our Arctic sovereignty, promoting social and economic development, protecting our environmental heritage, and improving and devolving northern governance. As the Strategy began to unfold, however, responses from Inuit communities suggested otherwise. Current literature in regards to this issue agrees that Inuit have been placed on the periphery of Canada's Northern Strategy. Instead of asking how this took place, focus has been placed on ways to better insert Inuit voices into the Strategy as it moves forward. As a consequence, this issue does not get fully resolved. My dissertation examines the question: How do Inuit get positioned on the periphery of Canada's Northern Strategy in the first place? I posit that it is in illuminating the political rationale that underpins the Strategy where this question can be addressed. Using a neoliberal governmentality framework, I examine three case studies from Canada's Northern Strategy that are all in their beginning stages of development, in order to reveal how a neoliberal political rationale is operating within each of these projects and, consequently, how it defines the way in which Inuit communities are able to participate. The intention of this analysis is to illuminate both the objective and associated technologies that are responsible for placing Inuit communities on the periphery, in order to be able to reconsider how these aspects influence the Strategy and its relationship with Inuit communities moving forward.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.041 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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".