MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1553065086

Do Glaciers Listen?: Local Knowledge, Colonial Encounters, and Social Imagination

2009· article· en· W1553065086 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michele Hartley

Bibliographic record

VenueWestern Folklore · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNarrativeColonialismEthnographyGlacierHistoryAnthropologySociologyArchaeologyLiteratureArtGeographyPhysical geography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Do Glaciers Listen?: Local Knowledge, Colonial Encounters, and Social Imagination. By Julie Cruikshank. (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 2005; Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2006. Pp. xii + 316, acknowledgments, introduction, maps, photographs, illustrations, notes, bibliography, index. $25.00 paper) Do Glaciers Listen? The title's very question pulls the reader in. By the end, it is clear that the answer lies with the reader, with the environment itself, and with narratives yet untold. Author Julie Cruikshank weaves a complex and engaging work that explores the intersections of history, culture, science, environmental change, theory, and methodology. She introduces the work with narratives dating from the later stages of the Little Ice Age (which lasted roughly between 1550 and 1850) of individual and group relationships to and with the glacial landscape of the St. Elias Range, which traverses the borders of the Yukon, British Columbia, and Alaska. Cruikshank expresses hope that her book will contribute to literature about environmental change, local knowledge, and human encounters (9) . Yet in its exploration of how narrative not only reflects who we are, but shapes our perspectives and influences our decisions as we relate to the landscapes in which we live, her book does much more. After the introduction, the book is divided into three parts. The first provides geological and historical background as well as glacier narratives from three female Native Alaskan elders, born between 1890 and 1902, with whom the author had worked since the 1970s. Here and throughout the book, Cruikshank propounds theories of oral history, ethnography, and anthropology that inform the stories and continue to influence their interpretation. This academic deliberation makes the book especially attractive to oral history practitioners and to workers in interdisciplinary academic fields concerned with the study of culture, narrative, and social memory, of which folklore is one. Part Two shifts to oral and written narratives about glacier exploration and cross-cultural between indigenous peoples and among indigenous peoples, Europeans, and Americans. Cruikshank presents the evolution of emerging concepts of nature and culture by tracing the compartmentalization dividing nature from culture common among Westerners while simultaneously presenting native peoples' relationships to nature. Cruikshank speculates about transformative moments that have occurred and may continue to resonate in between groups that have differing concepts of their relationship to nature. But in disentangling these moments, the author is careful neither to romanticize nor to polarize the groups. Part Two also examines, in light of current knowledge, John Muir's account of his Alaska expeditions (1879, 1880). Though hailed as a founding father of environmental preservation, Muir is here seen to have romanticized nature and to have been at times reckless, endangering himself on the glacier against the advice of indigenous helpers. …

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score0.144

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0090.026
Scholarly communication0.0120.010
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.352 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations4
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWestern FolkloreSame topicIndigenous Studies and EcologyFrench-language works237,207