MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1913255573 · doi:10.7202/1025710ar

“That’s where our future came from”: Mining, landscape, and memory in Rankin Inlet, Nunavut

2014· article· en· W1913255573 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Tara Cater, Arn Keeling

Bibliographic record

VenueÉtudes/Inuit/Studies · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInletClosure (psychology)ArcticEthnographyThe arcticLocal communityGeographyArchaeologyPolitical scienceEngineeringOceanographyLawGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Based on ethnographic and oral history research, this article investigates community experiences of historical and contemporary mineral development in the Arctic through an analysis of the cultural landscape of Rankin Inlet, Nunavut. The town was established in the 1950s around the North Rankin Nickel Mine—Arctic Canada’s first industrial mining operation. The mine’s rapid closure in 1962 dealt a devastating blow to the local economy, with about half the community staying in Rankin Inlet and struggling to make a living. In spite of the long period since closure, the mine’s influence is still present in the town’s built environment and cultural landscapes. Our research seeks to reveal the symbolic attachments both Inuit and long-term Qallunaat residents have formed with the post-industrial landscape. We argue that Rankin Inlet, as a community, is coming to terms with and (re)staking its claims to its industrial past, as part of contemporary efforts to manage the costs and benefits of new mineral development in the region.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.174
Threshold uncertainty score0.350

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0200.014
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.313 · 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

Citations28
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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