MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2027184365 · doi:10.1139/b07-052

Medicinal plants used by the Inuit of Qikiqtaaluk (Baffin Island, Nunavut)This paper was submitted for the Special Issue on Ethnobotany, inspired by the Ethnobotany Symposium organized by Alain Cuerrier, Montréal Botanical Garden, and held in Montréal at the 2006 annual meeting of the Canadian Botanical Association/l’Association Botanique du Canada.

2008· article· en· W2027184365 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Paleah Black, John T. Arnason, Alain Cuerrier

Bibliographic record

VenueBotany · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicLichen and fungal ecology
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityEspace pour la vie
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEthnobotanyFlora (microbiology)Traditional knowledgeMossBiodiversityArcticDocumentationGeographyEcologyBiologyArchaeologyEthnologyMedicinal plantsIndigenousHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The traditional medicinal uses of plants by the Inuit of Nunavut, Canada were analysed using quantitative ethnobotanical methodology. Traditional knowledge was collected during interviews with volunteer Inuit informants and from historical interview transcripts. A total of 13 different species were mentioned, which included 1 moss, 1 algae, 1 fungus, and 10 vascular plant species. An informant consensus index value, F ic > 0.7, for many use categories revealed a high level of informant agreement, consistent with a well-preserved oral tradition and low flora biodiversity. The documentation of this information is a useful tool for the preservation of Inuit culture, as well as for the integration of Inuit traditional medicine with Western medical practices in Arctic communities (Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit, IQ).

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.340
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.182
Teacher spread0.177 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations27
Published2008
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotanySame topicLichen and fungal ecologyFrench-language works237,207