Internal Colonialism Policy: A Case Study of the Relocation of the Inuit People in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This bachelor thesis explores the topic of the relocation of part of the Inuit population in Canada. The timeframe of the work is defined by the year 1953 (or alternatively also by the year 1955, when the second wave of this relocation took place), when this act was implemented. Several families from the Inukjuak location were moved more than a thousand kilometers to the north. The government had many motives for this relocation, with the most promoted ones being the overall rehabilitation of the Inuit community and the rediscovery of its "lost autonomy." Less promoted motives included Canada's sovereignty over its High Arctic islands during the Cold War period and the reduction of high social benefits for Inuit residents. This thesis uses the entire concept of relocation as a case study of internal colonialism, i.e., it seeks to demonstrate whether the relocation of the Inuit in 1953 can be considered an example of the federal Canadian government's use of the political strategy of internal colonialism, and if so, based on what evidence. The first two chapters focus on defining internal colonialism and introducing the relocation plan and the Inuit community. The third chapter is a research chapter where I apply the data obtained from both chapters and attempt to prove the aforementioned thesis. The...
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.048 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| 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".