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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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, Fic > 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".