The Role of Greenland and Nunavut in International Relations in 1979-2009
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Greenland and Nunavut are territories with a limited measure of autonomy. Greenland obtained it's autonomy when the Greenland Home Rule Act came into effect. Nunavut instead, obtained it's autonomy from the moment it was created in 1999, via the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement and the Nunavut Act.. Both Greenland and Nunavut have no authority to interfere with international affairs, but they do have options to get involved via different Inuit organizations (the majority of the population both Greenland and Nunavut are Inuits). This bachelor thesis, Role of Greenland and Nunavut in international relations in 1979 - 2009, aims to find an answer to the possibility of Greenland and Nunavut having an active part in international affairs (based on the documents mentioned above), if they can be considered of subjects of the international law and if some examples of their international involvement even can be mentioned. Even though according to their constitutional acts, niether Greenland nor Nunavut are allowed to act independently in matters of international affairs, the author of this thesis defends the hypothesis that in fact they can, participate in international discussions and even, on a limited scale, decide their own foreign policy. The first part of this thesis introduces a basic geographical,...
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".