MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W216456031 · doi:10.15021/00002810

Denendeh : anthropologists, politics and ethnicity in the reorganization of the Canadian Northwest Territories

2001· article· en· W216456031 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jean‐Guy A. Goulet

Bibliographic record

VenueInstitutional Repositories DataBase (IRDB) · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesEthnologyReification (Marxism)PoliticsPolitical scienceSociologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L'A. examine les presupposes epistemologiques qui sous-tendent, d'une part, la connaissance et les descriptions anthropologiques des Athapaskan du Nord - ou Dene -, d'autre part, la connaissance et la presentation d'eux-memes des Athapaskan du Nord. Il tente de comprendre comment l'adoption d'ethnonymes anglais contribue a la reification de l'identite des Dene, et comment ceux-ci utilisent les termes anglais d'identification tribale ou nationale dans leurs relations internes et avec les Euro-Canadiens. Il montre d'abord que le savoir cumulatif sur le passe des Athapaskan du Nord, tel qu'il est presente dans le volume six du Handbook of North American Indians (Helm, 1981), est organise a partir de categories theoriques imprecises. Il suggere que l'anthropologie des Dene tend a legitimer et reifier, plutot que d'analyser, les termes ethniques utilises dans le contexte sociopolitique des relations interculturelles de la periode du commerce des fourrures. Il soutient ensuite que les descriptions anthropologiques actuelles du processus de constitution des Dene en tant que Premiere Nation dans un territoire commun - Denendeh -, dans le cadre des revendications territoriales et politiques contemporaines et de la reorganisation des Territoires du Nord-Ouest, sont tout autant imprecises.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.121
Threshold uncertainty score0.877

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0330.015
Scholarly communication0.0080.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.312 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations2
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInstitutional Repositories DataBase (IRDB)Same topicIndigenous Studies and EcologyFrench-language works237,207