Bibliographic record
Abstract
It was a great honour for me to present this paper in Tlingit territory, in Juneau, Alaska.This was my first visit to Juneau and I began by explaining why it was such a meaningful occasion for me.I was born and raised in Teslin, Yukon.My Tlingit name is K'ayyadah and I am a Crow member of the Kokhitan clan.My mother is Tlingit, also born and raised in Teslin, and my father was born and raised in Lillehammer, Norway.He came to Canada in 1925 and later made Teslin his home.My grandmother, my mother's mother, was born in Tulsequah, near Juneau, and lived part of her life in Juneau.She later moved inland to Teslin when she married my grandfather, Jim Fox.So Juneau is a special place in my family's history.I grew up surrounded by beading and beadwork.There is a very special aura about beads.The centre of our home, when I was a child, was my mother and her beadwork.Often, it was the small amount of cash from the sales of her work that bought our school clothes or made Christmas more special.I began to take an active interest in beadwork again when I had the opportunity to visit the George Johnston Museum in Teslin with my mother in 1992, and, in her company, to look at the beadwork there.She was able to point out some of the objects and to identify their makers.My interest was further fired when I saw photographs of costumes in George Emmons' s book, The Tlingit Indians.This led me to prepare a proposal to conduct research on beadwork collections in the MacBride Museum in Whitehorse, a proposal it later accepted. The ProjectThe MacBride Museum had several objectives in sponsoring the Southern Yukon Beadwork Traditions project.First, the museum wanted to record and share knowledge about its collections from southwestern Yukon Territory and northern British Columbia.Secondly, the staff hoped that such a project would increase access to their ethnographic 28The Northern Review #14 (Summer 1995): 28-33.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".