MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1920824403 · doi:10.3138/topia.32.159

On the Fluidity of Grounds: Sea Ice and Digital Mediation of Inuit Experience

2015· article· en· W1920824403 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Mark Vardy

Bibliographic record

VenueTOPIA Canadian Journal of Cultural Studies · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoliticsSubjectivityMediationAgency (philosophy)Subject (documents)SociologyGeographyEpistemologyOceanographyAestheticsEnvironmental ethicsPolitical scienceGeologySocial scienceLawPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The decline of sea ice is one of the most visible markers of climate change in the Arctic, but much more than the subject of a scientific anomaly, sea ice constitutes Inuit territory and is foundational to a way of life. The threatened vitality of the foundations of Inuit homeland raises the ethical and political question of how populations in southern Canada should respond, a question which is complicated by the lack of proximity. The digitally mediated Inuit Siku (Sea Ice) Atlas (Laidler, 2011) can impart singular experiences of sea ice, and is treated in this paper as a substantive example of vital mediation (Kember and Zylinska, 2012). The paper addresses the fluidity of ground as both a material fact and theoretical postulate by considering theories of vitalism, radical democracy, and Chakrabarty’s (2012) conception of political subjectivity as three disjunctive registers, which includes human agency as a geophysical force.

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 score0.913
Threshold uncertainty score0.174

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.038
Scholarly communication0.0100.007
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.121
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.259 · 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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTOPIA Canadian Journal of Cultural Studies→Same topicIndigenous Studies and Ecology→French-language works237,207→