Community Archaeology: The Kitikmeot Heritage Society's Iqaluktuuq Project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, some archaeologists have made an effort to include the views and knowledge of the people who live in the areas they study.Archaeological projects that are conscious of the benefit of community involvement, and able to connect with local people, can draw from sources of traditional knowledge and first hand experience of people for whom the archaeological record is part ofliving memory.These projects are able to not only expand the information base available to the archaeologists working in them, but also to make their work inclusive and relevant to groups that are often overlooked in archaeology.This kind of cooperative approaches has been called 'community archaeology', and has been promoted both for the academic benefits specifically the inclusion of oral historie~and ethnographic analogies, and the ability to be inclusive to groups traditional excluded from archaeological research.One such combined effort is the Iqaluktuuq Project, conducted by the Kitikmeot Heritage Society in association with the University of Toronto.This project is an ongoing series of excavations around the Cambridge Bay area of Victoria Island, Nunavut (Friesen 2002).The excavations conducted by this project are done in the presence oflocal Inuit elders, who are able to share their knowledge of the areas and many of the features and artifacts recovered.The cooperation between the local community and archaeologists has improved the quality and depth of the interpretations made, and also made it possible for the people of the Kitikmeot area to participate in the study of their ancestral cultures.The Kitikmeot Heritage Society (KHS) and the Iqaluktuuq Project are examples of a community based heritage project that has been able to contribute to the understanding of archaeological cultures in the Canadian Arctic, while making their research engaging and relevant to both the archaeological and indigenous communities.In this paper, I will explore the theoretical issues raised by community archaeology, the nature of the interactions between the various groups involved, the methodology and results of the Iqaluktuuq Project, and evaluate what successes the project has had thus far.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".