La ceinture fléchée au carrefour des convoitises des communautés canadiennes-françaises, amérindiennes et métisses du Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The historical and current uses of the arrowhead sash and the debate surrounding its origins show that it has been prized by many different groups in Canada. Historically French Canadians, aboriginal peoples, and Metis have claimed the sash as theirs and used it to indicate social standing, particularly in the context of the fur trade. Today, it is part of the cultural legacy of each of these communities. Research into material culture has long maintained that we can understand the significance that groups attach to an object simply by tracing its history. This article takes a different approach by exploring the idea that we can understand the significance specific groups attach to certain objects by studying thet inherent physical characteristics, as indicated by the history of the arrowhead sash. Resume Depuis le debat sur ses origines jusque dans son utilisation historique et actuelle, la ceinture flechee a ete valorisee par plusieurs communautes differentes. Historiquement, elle a ete revendiquee par les Canadiens fiancais, les Autochtones etlesMetis du Canada, qui s'en sont d'abord servi comme marqueur de prestige social, notamment dans le cadre de la traite des fourrures. De nos jours, elle est devenue un objet emblematique du patrimoine respectif de ces communautes. Les recherches en culture materielle ont longtemps considere que le reperage du parcours historique d'un objet permettait a lui seul d'etudier le sens qui etait donne a l'objet par les collectivites en contact avec lui. Cet article se demarque en explorant la these selon laquelle le sens attribue a certains objets par des collectivites peut aussi etre apprehende par l'analyse de leurs caracteristiques materielles inherentes, ainsi que l'indique le parcours de la ceinture flechee.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".