Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Inuit of Kangiqsualujjuaq have maintained functional and spiritual connections with the landscape and waters of Arctic Quebec (Nunavik) for over four thousand years. While ethnographic studies about this ocean-going population have revealed their pragmatic relationships with the arctic milieu, less is known, however, about their perceptions of terrestrial and aquatic realms. Three fieldtrips to Kangiqsualujjuaq were undertaken between 2003 and 2005 to explore how three generations of Inuit perceived the land-water interface, a geographical setting regularly frequented and considered spiritually important to the Inuit. Surveys were carried out to determine whether Inuit regarded the sea as an extension of the “land”, a way of thinking about space that is common among indigenous islanders in southern latitudes. The research reported in this thesis involved the participation of thirty-four Inuit men and women from six families, whose ancestors once lived in separate hunting camps along the Ungava Bay coast. Using an intergenerational approach to explore whether perceptions of the land-water interface were consistent or inconsistent across and between generations, the cohort responded to questions about spatial concepts, travel patterns, traditional narratives, senses of place, and hunting knowledge. A series of drawing exercises, which were designed to understand how the cohort perceived the land-water interface pictorially, were performed by 13 Inuit participants and 14 Inuit adolescent students from the local School. Traditional methods of Inuit learning and transmitting knowledge about the land-water interface were also investigated to ascertain the extent to which pedagogical instruments underpin and mould Inuit perceptions of this setting. A series of knowledge-maps/trees were subsequently created for each family unit to illustrate the flow of traditional knowledge both among and across Inuit generations. The data derived from interviews and the draw
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".