Abraham's Diary ‐ A European Ethnic Show from an Inuk Participant's Viewpoint
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Between 1874 and 1932, the Hamburg‐based German menagerie owner and founder of the still existing zoo, Carl Hagenbeck, organized ethnic shows – a common form of European and American show business of that time period. Troupes of people from locations considered to be ‘exotic' were recruited in order to perform in front of paying spectators what were considered to be “typical activities” of their homelands and cultures. The article describes the Hagenbeck Inuit show of 1880/81, which was comprised of Inuit who were recruited in Labrador, and focuses the diary written by Abraham who was one of the Inuk participants. Abraham's diary is compared with that written by Johan Adrian Jacobsen, who was the show impresario, as both cover the same events and stretch of time. Correspondence by Hagenbeck and other staff members involved in organizing the show and by the Moravian Brethren in Labrador, Germany and England as well as additional Moravian documents are used to contextualize further the material included in Abraham's diary. Thus, it is possible to some extent to reconstruct the events before, during, and after the show occurred. As well, the particular features of Abraham's diary are analyzed. As this diary seems to be the only source on a European‐organized ethnic show written by one of the non‐European participants, the diary is of special documentary value.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".