Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".