Going Native: “Playing Inuit,” “Becoming Savage,” and Acting Out Franklin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Q alasirssuaq is a fascinating example of how those involved in the search for the Franklin expedition played with, adapted, and cross-cultural boundaries. Intercultural contact worked reciprocally and mutually, shaping not only Inuit but also the Euro-Americans engaged in the search. Qalasirssuaq’s experience of living among British sailors is mirrored in American Charles Francis Hall’s accounts of living with Inuit in the 1860s. After McClintock’s expedition returned to England in 1859 with the Victory Point record—which confirmed Franklin’s death and convinced many that all 105 men who abandoned the ships in 1848 were long dead—Hall became fixated on discovering what “really” happened. Because McClintock established where Franklin’s ships had been abandoned and the approximate route the retreating men took, Hall thought it was obvious that further searches of King William Island would uncover relics and records from the expedition; he criticized the British government and the Admiralty for failing to recognize that “the truth could now so easily be obtained obtained, and the ground to explore so small and comparatively so easy of access!” ( Life 3). Furthermore, Hall was certain that previous searches failed because no one had bothered to thoroughly interview Inuit: “neither McClintock nor any other civilized person has yet been able to ascertain the facts. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.002 |
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".