Body techniques of health: Making products and shaping selves in northwest Alaska
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper considers the connections between body technologies and wellness. Residents of northwest Alaska suffer disproportionately from social and behavioural illnesses. In Nome and Kotzebue, Inupiat and Yupiit women prescribe traditional activities, such as processing food and making tools and crafts from local harvests, to family members in an effort to promote their well-being. At the same time, Alaska Native institutions organise subsistence activities as a means to generate healthy living among tribal members. This paper seeks to understand why so many Nome and Kotzebue residents view traditional activities as a solution to locally perceived social ills such as substance abuse. The ethnography is based on two groups of women’s collective efforts: processing of seal into black meat and learning to make grass baskets—activities locally identified as “traditional” practices. Firstly, this article highlights the body practices developed within spaces of women’s collective production. Secondly, it describes the contemplation and narratives that emerge within these spaces. Lastly, it explores the relationship between body practice and verbal expression, and how this relationship promotes wellness. Analysing Inupiat and Yupiit traditional activities within the framework of technological process reveals how making traditional products also shapes healthy individuals.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".