The Barrow Symposium on Sea Ice, 2000: Evaluation of One Means of Exchanging Information between Subsistence Whalers and Scientists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A Barrow Symposium on Sea Ice (BSSI) was held in early winter 2000. The National Science Foundation (U.S.) funded this symposium as the keystone event in a project designed to ally traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) with formal ice research and remote sensing. The goal of the project was to stimulate substantive interactions between scientists and technicians who study sea ice on one hand, and Inupiat Eskimos (primarily whaling captains and their crews) who use the ice routinely for travel, camping, and hunting, on the other. From different perspectives, at different scales, and for different purposes, the two groups have accumulated extensive knowledge of ice characteristics and dynamics. We evaluate strengths and weaknesses of the workshop format as a means of exchanging information between scientific and traditional knowledge.... To continue to develop the interactions and shared purposes that characterized the BSSI, a core group of participants needs to meet periodically to review progress on sea ice research in the region, and to seek ways to promote further collaboration between ice observers from the subsistence community and scientists. Research on sea ice appears likely to continue to flourish near Barrow. Both whalers and scientists are eager to share information and insights. Facilitating that exchange is not a trivial task. To be successful in the long run, the promising start made by the BSSI needs to be followed up with refinements in collaborative field research, as well as by regular opportunities for scientists and whalers to learn from one another.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".