MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2404272504 · doi:10.1080/13527258.2016.1182051

<i>Our land is our voice</i>: First Nation heritage-making in the Tr’ondëk/Klondike

2016· article· en· W2404272504 on OpenAlexaffabout
David A. Neufeld

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Heritage Studies · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsParks Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubsistence agricultureSovereigntyCultural heritageIdentity (music)First nationModernityMaking-ofGovernment (linguistics)National identityColonialismEthnologyGold rushTreatyPolitical scienceFoodwaysHistoryEnvironmental ethicsAnthropologyArchaeologySociologyLawPoliticsAestheticsArtManagementIndigenousEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The subsistence lifeways of the Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in, a First Nation in northwestern Canada, were radically challenged by the arrival of settler colonialism during the Klondike Gold Rush (1896–98). This Yukon First Nation has subsequently faced down a powerful array of Western heritage activities and commemorations, both local and national, designed to absorb them into modernity. Through a conscious and continuous programme of heritage-making, the citizens of the First Nation have re-asserted their territorial sovereignty and maintained and adapted their cultural identity to changing circumstances. Their heritage-making strategies are illustrated through a review of their call for a treaty, the creation of new instruments for carrying and expressing their cultural identity and their more recent programme of support for the survivors of the Canadian Government’s Indian Residential Schools.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.445
Threshold uncertainty score0.896

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 studies0.0140.024
Scholarly communication0.0110.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.321 · 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

Citations4
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Heritage StudiesSame topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207