MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2154055003 · doi:10.1017/s0032247402002711

Economic changes, household strategies, and social relations of contemporary Nunavik Inuit

2003· article· en· W2154055003 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Marcelle Chabot

Bibliographic record

VenuePolar Record · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversité Laval
KeywordsRationalityDiversity (politics)Production (economics)ArcticGeographyEconomicsSociologyPolitical scienceEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines current economic practices of the Inuit of Nunavik and the consequences of these practices on social relations. In western societies, recourse to market and increasingly frequent use of money have been identified as major factors related to a decline in household production. These practices are also associated with a reduction of interpersonal dependency and with the emergence of instrumental rationality. In Nunavik, like in many Arctic regions, money and commodities represent an increasing portion of the economic resources of Inuit households. Household production also contributes substantially to their resources. An examination of the Inuit household budget shows a diversity of lifestyles supported by various economic activities and strategies that aim at satisfying material needs of family members. These strategies demonstrate that Inuit are economically rational and make use of monetary calculation. This rationality does not influence all economic behaviours, which are also motivated by traditional values and customary obligations. However, the emergence of diversity in lifestyles indicates the existence of a greater margin of self-determination for 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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.405
Threshold uncertainty score0.815

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations64
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolar RecordSame topicIndigenous Studies and EcologyFrench-language works237,207