Trans-Indian Identity and the Inuit “Other”: Relations between the Chipewyan and Neighboring Aboriginal Communities in the Eighteenth Century
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The history of the Canadian Arctic and Subarctic hints at how certain aboriginal American communities constructed identities across the lines drawn by differences in language and culture. This history also suggests that aboriginal communities' ability, or willingness, to stretch the limits of group inclusion faced certain environmentally and economically dictated constraints. A study of the relationships between Chipewyan Indians and their Indian and Inuit neighbors in the lands lying west of Hudson Bay in the eighteenth century suggests that Indian trading, cohabitation, and war-making served to create and reinforce culturally constructed intercommunity identities. These identities proved fluid enough to incorporate sometime rivals (the Crees and Yellowknives) as well as new trading partners (Hudson's Bay Company employees) while still excluding cultural others (the Inuit), at least until the end of the century. This study of the interactions of Indian and Inuit communities west of Hudson Bay suggests that, at least during the eighteenth century, the Chipewyan constructed a cross-tribal, trans-Indian sense of identity at least partially defined by their rejection of the Inuit “other.”
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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".