(Re)claiming Aboriginal identity: Inuit animation from Cape Dorset to Quickdraw
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The NFB’s Animation Department has produced internationally respected animated films based on aboriginal culture and heritage. In the 1970’s, with support from the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, the NFB produced a series of films on Inuit legends that were participatory in nature, including Co Hoedeman’s collaboration with Inuit artists for Owl and the Raven (1973), and Caroline Leaf’s The Owl who Married a Goose (1974). Concurrently, aboriginal animation was supported by the NFB’s workshop in Cape Dorset initiated by Wolf Koenig, resulting in Animation from Cape Dorset (1973), a compilation of 16 short works. While Lorna Roth notes they were devoid of political, social or legal themes or topics (2005: 99), I argue that these films, made collectively by young Inuit filmmakers, are a more effective visual and aural expression of their culture’s artistic and linguistic heritage than the films produced in the NFB Animation Department, in a similar way that W.S. Van Dyke’s docudrama Eskimo (1933) was a cultural corrective to Robert Flaherty’s Nanook of the North (1922). The Canada Council’s establishment of the Aboriginal Arts Secretariat (1994) and the creation of the Nunavut Territory (1999) led to a blossoming of Inuit animation. I examine the artistic and narrative legacy of the Cape Dorset animation in the Nunavut Animation Lab, set up in 2006, to reclaim their cultures’ arts heritage, storytelling and identity. This discussion is framed within a larger context of independent animation in Canada, its contribution to Canadian film culture, and work with different social, cultural and ethnic groups.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 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".