MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W178392898 · doi:10.3138/topia.32.67

<i>Super Shamou versus Captain Al Cohol</i>: Inuit Cultural Productions and the Discourses on Inuit Drinkers

2015· article· en· W178392898 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Pamela Stern

Bibliographic record

VenueTOPIA Canadian Journal of Cultural Studies · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComicsEthnologyNothingHumanitiesHistoryArtSociologyMedia studiesLiteraturePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The history of alcohol control policy in the Canadian Arctic is perverse. In the 1960s northern administrators regarded alcohol consumption as the right and responsibility of masculine citizens. Thus, they undertook to provide tutelage to Inuit in the “proper” use of the substance in the hopes that Inuit could be produced as proper citizens of the nation. A decade later the alcohol education message directed at Inuit changed. The new message told Inuit to abstain from drink. Many of the educational materials delivering this message, such as the Captain Al Cohol comic book series, started with the premise that Inuit were naïve users of alcohol and that Inuit alcohol abuse stemmed largely from a lack of knowledge about its effects. Nothing could be further from the truth. In this paper I examine Inuit cultural productions dealing with alcohol use and abuse. Some of the works, such as Manassie Akpaliapik’s well-known whalebone and stone sculpture of a bottle embedded in a man’s head, were produced for non-Inuit consumers of Inuit art and culture. Others, including cartoons, short stories, journalism, filmic works and the Super Shamou comic book, were directed at Inuit audiences. I consider how Inuit understandings of citizenship, alcohol, and the self are reflected in these cultural productions.

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)0.003
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.539
Threshold uncertainty score0.916

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0460.030
Scholarly communication0.0120.007
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.112
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.289 · 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTOPIA Canadian Journal of Cultural StudiesSame topicIndigenous Studies and EcologyFrench-language works237,207