MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1863463142 · doi:10.7202/019716ar

Uelen hunters and artists

2009· article· en· W1863463142 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
M. Bronshtein

Bibliographic record

VenueÉtudes/Inuit/Studies · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCarvingHandicraftFolkloreOrnamentsPrehistoryMythologyStyle (visual arts)ArtBeautyAdornmentVisual artsArchaeologyHistoryAestheticsLiterature

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Uelen is a settlement inhabited by coastal Chukchi and Yupik people who do not only hunt sea animals but also carve their ivory. Archaeological excavations in Uelen testify that ivory carving has existed there at least since the beginning of our era. When whale hunters and traders came in Uelen in the 19th century, traditional ivory carving turned into an ethnic handicraft. In 1931, Uelen residents were the first to open an ivory carving workshop in Chukotka. In the mid-1930s, they benefited from the valuable help of the Russian artist and art critic Alexander Gorbunkov, who encouraged them to develop their own artistic potential. By the end of the 1930s, Uelen carvers and engravers had acquired their particular artistic style based on their deep knowledge of the Arctic hunters’ customs, expressive images of polar animals, and the natural beauty of walrus tusk. The involvement of a large number of Uelen inhabitants in ivory carving was the main reason for its preservation during the Second World War and the difficult aftermath. New tendencies, including human and folklore themes, emerged in the 1950s-1970s alongside traditional hunting depictions. In the 1980s and 1990s, Uelen artists included in their art some patterns from prehistoric ornaments. While many Chukotka artists are using new creative ways in the 2000s, Uelen carvers in general keep closer to tradition. For them, ivory carving has become a symbol of the vanishing culture of their ancestors.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.399
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.435
Teacher spread0.355 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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