Greenlandic attitudes towards Norwegians and Danes from Nansen’s icecap crossing to the 1933 World Court verdict in The Hague
Bibliographic record
Abstract
After Fridtjof Nansen (1861-1930) crossed the Greenland icecap, he spent the winter in Nuuk and impressed the Greenlanders not only by demonstrating his skill and daring in kayaking, but also by his openness to Greenlandic food, culture, and traditions. Later on, when Danes and Norwegians came into conflict over Greenland, Greenlanders supported the Danish colonial power against Norway, while at the same criticizing the Danes for not paying enough respect to Greenlanders during the process. Articles from the national Greenlandic newspapersAtuagagdliutitandAvangnâmioĸdemonstrate that Greenlanders were open-minded towards Norwegians but critical towards Danes. They fully supported the latter as a colonial power against Norway, while never refraining from the idea that Greenland remained their ethnic-national territory, even though for the time being it was colonized by the Danes. The author concludes that Greenlandic agency found in these newspapers is very relevant when negotiating today’s discourse on colonial Greenlanders.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".