MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2386877729 · doi:10.3138/jrpc.27.3.2938

The Cannibal Talking Head: The Portrayal of the Windigo “Monster” in Popular Culture and Ojibwe Traditions

2015· article· en· W2386877729 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Brady DeSanti

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Religion and Popular Culture · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicFolklore, Mythology, and Literature Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMonsterHarmony (color)ComicsPopular cultureLiteraturePerspective (graphical)HistorySociologyAestheticsMedia studiesArtAnthropologyVisual arts

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines the windigo “monster” of Algonquian Indian traditions through the lens of popular culture. The cannibalistic entity remains a consistent antagonist in comic books, cartoons, movies, and television series. Each medium portrays components of the windigo and related phenomena with varying degrees of accuracy. And while the windigo continues to be a part of many different Algonquian-speaking Native American and First Nations cultural traditions, this article focuses primarily on Ojibwe understandings of the entity. Along with evaluating the windigo from a popular media perspective, particular attention is also given to situating the windigo in accordance with Ojibwe spirituality and their concept of mino-bimaddiziwin, a philosophy that encourages individuals to remain in balance and harmony with themselves and communities.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.010
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations9
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Religion and Popular CultureSame topicFolklore, Mythology, and Literature StudiesFrench-language works237,207