Uvattinnit: Le Peuple du Grand Nord/The People of the Far North, by Karim Rholem
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dahl's manuscript helps to fill this gap in the literature.It makes a contribution to Inuit studies in general and to Greenlandic studies in particular.The real contribution, however, lies less in how Dahl engages with theory and wider conceptual issues in the anthropological literature on hunting societies (although this is indeed an important part of the book!), but more in his rich ethnographic material and attention to detail.His descriptions of beluga whaling and seal hunting and his analysis of the meaning of sharing and exchange are especially good and do much to further our understanding of how all this works in modern Greenland.There are parallels between Greenlanders and other hunting peoples and coastal communities in other parts of the Arctic and North Atlantic, and this book deserves to be read widely-by anthropologists, resource managers, policy-makers, and others with a concern for sustainable livelihoods.Above all, this book is a valuable record by an anthropologist who has firsthand knowledge of one hunting community in Greenland and has witnessed both the changes that have affected people's lives and the resilience of a vibrant hunting mode of production.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.003 |
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".