MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2115692334 · doi:10.15021/00002687

Cultural and Ethnic Identities of Inuit in Canada

2004· article· en· W2115692334 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInstitutional Repositories DataBase (IRDB) · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEthnic groupIdentity (music)Cultural identityGender studiesPoliticsSociologyArcticEthnologyAnthropologyGeographyPolitical scienceSocial scienceLawAesthetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since the l960s, ethnicity has been one of the central concepts in social sciences (fbr example, see Barth 1969; Bentley 1987; Banks 1996; Sollors 1997; Kim 2000: 78). An important topic related to the study of ethnicity is the problem of ethnic identity. As human beings have multiple identities, ethnic identity is one of many identities of a person or group. This paper is concerned with identities of the contemporary Inuit in Canada. In the late 1990s, approximately 15 percent of Canadian Inujt liyed in urban centers in southern Canada (Kishigami 1999a; 1999b; 1999c). Thus, in order to understand the identities of Canadian Inuit, we need to include the study of the identities of inuit living both in arctic villages and in southern cities of Canada. As fatr as my knowledge of studies on identities of the inuit and Yirpiit is concemed, we have not clearly distinguished between cultural identity and ethnic identity. We have had a tendency to focus on either of the identities or to have confused them. While Fienup-Riordan (1983), Wenzel (1991; 2001), Nuttall (1992), and Omura (1998; 2002) are primarily concerned with several aspects of cultural identity in arctlc peoples, Kishigami (1992; 2002), Briggs (1997), and Stewart (1998; 2002) mainly deal with aspects of ethnic identity. We find some gaps between Inuit life in the arctic and discourse in the political arena. Dorais and Briggs attempt to account for the gaps. Dorais (1994) employs the concept of cultural identity, which is related to but differeRt from that of ethnic identity. Briggs makes a distinction between cultural traits deriving from the daily life of Inuit and emblems, which are chosen as emotionally charged markers by Inuit from the cultural traits (Briggs 1997: 228). It seems to me that the traits are connected to cultural identity and the emblems to ethnic identity. ln this papeg I will explain that while Inuit living in arctic villages are reproducing their cultural identity through daily socio-cultural practices in inuit appropriate ways, they seldom express their ethnic identity in their daily life. In almost a reverse situation, many urban Inuit except those who come down south as adultsi, have difficulty sustaining their cultural jdentity in multi-ethnic sjtuations but majntain their ethnjc identjty as a wall against other ethnic people. I will emphasize that there is a difference between being an lnuk and being a member of the lnuit people, using data from research in Akulivik and Montreal of Canada.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.313
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.311 · 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