MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

<i>Sanaugait</i>in Nunavut

2013· article· he· W2329200884 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alena Buis, Sarah E.K. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Modern Craft · 2013
Typearticle
Languagehe
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCultural Industries and Urban Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCraftGovernment (linguistics)Promotion (chess)Political scienceThe artsPower (physics)Arts administrationPublic administrationSociologyMedia studiesVisual artsHistoryLawArtArts in educationPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AbstractStarting from the recent promotion of the inuksuk, which was crowned the official logo of the 2010 Vancouver Olympic Games, this article examines the ways in which Inuit culture is currently being deployed within Canada and to what ends. We focus our examination on sanaugait, the Inuktitut term for things created by hand, which encompasses what is conventionally labeled craft production. Structuring our discussion around two case studies, we first delve into the artistic practice of Inuk textile artist and arts administrator Theresie Tungilik. This analysis reveals how Tungilik employs fiber arts to engage with oral histories and to comment on the production of sanaugait historically. Subsequently, we address the changes in the management of visual and material culture in Nunavut, Canada's newest territory, which was established in 1999. Examining territorial policy and strategies, we assess how sanaugait have been harnessed for specific economic growth. Through our examination of sanaugait as they have been mobilized by individual artists, as well as territorial and federal governments, we suggest that craft production is central to a renegotiation of power. Specifically, we argue that sanaugait reveal a shift in control between the predominantly Inuit territorial government and the Canadian federal government.Keywords: Theresie Tungiliksanaugaitcraft productioncultural policyNunavutCanadainuksukVancouver Olympic Games

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.116
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Modern CraftSame topicCultural Industries and Urban DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207