MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1537055019 · doi:10.7202/038216ar

Inuit settlement in the Clyde area during “contact-exploration” times (ca. 1820-1895)

2009· article· en· W1537055019 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
George W. Wenzel

Bibliographic record

VenueÉtudes/Inuit/Studies · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSettlement (finance)BayArchaeologySound (geography)SituatedHistoryGeographyOceanographyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Boas, in his classic The Central Eskimo (1888), strongly implied that at the time of his most northerly journey the Baffin Island coast between northern Home Bay and Eclipse Sound, what is today the Clyde River area, was at most only lightly utilised by Inuit. Ethnohistorical inquiry about Inuit settlement in the area prior to a European presence was frustrated by a lack of temporal referencing for much of the information received from Clyde elders. However, more success was achieved by using temporally situated literature references as cues for informants. This paper relates Clyde Inuit recollections to three reports about 19th century Inuit in the region. The earliest of these (1820) occurred almost at the site of modern Clyde River, while the other two reports are both within a decade of Boas’s journey. These accounts, coupled with Mathiassen’s (1928) information from Inuit at Pond Inlet about their birthplaces and travels, suggest that the Clyde area, while perhaps not intensively occupied, was far from unknown to Inuit.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.536
Threshold uncertainty score0.923

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0110.005
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.092
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.305 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueÉtudes/Inuit/StudiesSame topicIndigenous Studies and EcologyFrench-language works237,207