Wistful thinking: Making Inuit labour and the Nanisivik mine near Ikpiarjuk (Arctic Bay), northern Baffin Island
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article interrogates discourse about Inuit in relation to employment issues and the Inuit response to “what was good for them” at the intersection of colonial and postcolonial thought in the 1970s. Attempts to integrate Inuit with a modern industrial economy occurred after Inuit had moved, or been moved, from land-based hunting and trapping camps to new settlements developing in the eastern Arctic. We examine the planning stage (1970-1976) of the Nanisivik mine at Strathcona Sound on the northern tip of Baffin Island that operated from 1976 until 2002. Building on the work of James O’Connor in the early 1970s and concepts of legitimisation and accumulation functions of the State, and using the archival records of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Department of Energy, Mines, and Resources, we explore the extent to which Inuit were constructed as “labour in need of employment.” In examining debate between officials of these departments, we seek to find out to what extent other needs went unmet, based on experience with the Rankin Inlet Nickel Mine (1957-1962). Inuit resistance to this definition and the relationship between Inuit as hunters and Inuit as wage earners are explored with reference to contemporary mining development in Nunavut.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.034 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".