MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2036641742 · doi:10.1353/can.0.0281

Kiumajut (Talking Back) (review)

2010· article· en· W2036641742 sur OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Nancy Wachowich

Notice bibliographique

RevueCanadian Historical Review · 2010
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésArcticDominionWildlifeGovernment (linguistics)Wildlife managementRelocationCircumpolar starEnvironmental ethicsHistoryPolitical scienceGeographySociologyLawEcology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Kiumajut (Talking Back) Nancy Wachowich Kiumajut (Talking Back). Peter Kulchyski and Frank James Tester Vancouver: UBC Press, 2008. Pp. 336, $85.00 cloth, $32.95 paper The twentieth century was a time of social upheaval for the Inuit of what is today Nunavut. Grappling with modern dominion over its arctic territories, the Canadian government ushered in an era of scientific wildlife management shaped around regimes to protect species deemed 'at risk' from over-hunting by Inuit. Kiumajut (Talking Back) by Peter Kulchyski and Frank James Tester offers rich insights into this episode in Canadian and Inuit history. Through detailed archival and oral history research, the authors explore how harvesting arctic game, such as muskox, caribou, polar bear, walrus, and species of migratory birds, became thoroughly regulated and restricted by federal officialdom. Inuit hunting families, historically dependent on those animal populations for survival, were faced with a stark choice: break the law or go hungry. This is the authors' second book setting out to analyze the application of Western governmental, administrative, scientific, and legal systems in the Canadian Arctic, and expose their incongruities. The earlier work, Tammarniit (Mistakes) Inuit Relocation in the Eastern Arctic, 1939–63 (1994), explains the growth of a state apparatus and the expansion of social welfarism in the Arctic. Kiumajut (Talking Back) – considered an accompaniment rather than a sequel to their previous account – relates in poignant detail a series of incidents where arctic administrators failed to take Inuit environmental relationships into [End Page 151] consideration when developing new game laws and ordinances. For Inuit, bureaucratic and managerial practices were often difficult to digest and even tragic in consequence. Denied independent economic livelihoods, and yet embedded within modernist wildlife-management regimes, many had to rely on patronage from the state. Kiumajut (Talking Back) dissects this modernization and asks how it was that the Canadian government, save for a powerful paternalistic rhetoric, failed to develop a policy to support an Inuit hunting economy. The disregard shown to Inuit traditional environmental knowledge in the development of arctic wildlife-management regimes remains a key problematic for contemporary arctic scholars and Inuit alike. Kulchyski and Tester draw upon combinations of neo-Marxist and post-structuralist critical theory to interpret this shortcoming. The first part of the book tells of the growth of a modernist regime in the Canadian Arctic in the early to mid-twentieth century. Discourses of modernity, found in detailed government reports, working papers, committee minutes, memos, and correspondences are deployed to show how a 'totalizing state structure' engaged in an 'ethnocentric science game,' employed (often inaccurate) surveys of animal populations and (disputed) reports of 'wanton slaughters' by Inuit to rationalize its regulation of indigenous subsistence practices. Alongside their discussion of institutionalized discourses of hegemony, case studies and oral and written testimonies from individual Inuit are also used to reveal instances of what the authors describe as praxis, counter-hegemony, or the logic of resistance. Official documentation reveals how certain government agents supported and enforced strict game restrictions, while others did not. The reaction of Inuit subjects was similarly equivocal. Some hunters succumbed. Others, forced to feed their families, chose to ignore, overlook, or openly defy ordinances, despite threats, fines, and jail sentences. In the second part of the book, Kulchyski and Tester describe the emergence of a political consciousness movement in the Arctic as hunters, eager to voice discontent with game laws and protect themselves from penalties, learned to navigate new governmental, bureaucratic terrains. The chapters detail how, in an effort to develop and manage their own communities, Inuit experimented with and eventually appropriated Western democratic forms and a discourse of indigenous rights in order to engage in dialectical relationships with a state apparatus that variously denied their existence or outlawed their way of life. [End Page 152] The book has a number of real strengths. Kulchyski and Tester review a wealth of the grey literature covering a lengthy period in Canadian Arctic history. For readers who have found themselves trawling reports, letters, policy papers, and memos in national and local archives, this account in invaluable. The authors offer routes through a network of paper trails left by Arctic colonial administrators. Notably, quotations and vignettes drawn from...

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,094
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,314

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,004
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,001
Bibliométrie0,0030,004
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0030,003
Science ouverte0,0020,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,003
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0940,041

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,051
Tête enseignante GPT0,361
Écart entre enseignants0,309 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2010
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCanadian Historical Review→Même sujetIndigenous Studies and Ecology→Travaux en français237 207→