Comparing academic and aboriginal definitions of Arctic identities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the last decades, scholarly studies on Arctic identities have been on the increase, but less is known about how academic viewpoints diverge from aboriginal perspectives. The aim of this article is to compare both points of view, by looking at the way some academic specialists define Arctic identities, in contrast — or convergence — with how one Arctic people, the Inuit, perceive who they are. Twelve scholars conducting social research in the north and recognised for their competence were interviewed on their definition of identity and their assessment of the current situation of Arctic aboriginal populations. Their responses show that they view identity as a relational and constructed process, a process that continues without much disruption despite rapid social and cultural change. As modern Inuit are concerned, ethnography and personal testimonies tend to show that they perceive identity as an open-ended and individual — as opposed to collective — relationship rather than as a way of classifying people. Inuit perceptions agree on some points — the relational aspects for instance — but diverge on others — for example, the primarily individual nature of identity — from those of the interviewed scholars, and they should be taken into account in any assessment of the current human situation in the Arctic.
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 | 0.017 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".