Bibliographic record
Abstract
Modern Inuit commercial arts grew out of the desires of multiple non-Inuit agencies and persons active during the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s. Competing visions, of art production as substitute for welfare, art as continuity with pre-modern crafts, art as Canadian national symbol, art as the expression of extreme alterity in the form of an animistic hunter-gatherer people’s world view, brought into being a dynamic new set of creative forms which surpassed all of those views. In Gell’s terms, these new art forms were means of carrying out the will of these competing persons in a complex competition to control social and cultural relationships. Yet this, in some sense, imposed aesthetic category of ‘Eskimo Art’ was in turn appropriated by the Inuit and transformed in both discourse and practice to express their active (rather than passive) relations with the Canadian state. Indeed by the 1970s the Inuit had come to believe that a major component of their identity in the world was that of artists, and they built on this new strength to establish new economic, social and political institutions. This case illustrates the complex way in which indigenous art can simultaneously proclaim difference or distinctiveness from the surrounding nation-state and also express that nation’s identity within the world of nations. Objects, with their multivalent potentials, seem uniquely able to carry out such symbolic projects.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.029 | 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".