MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2526992425 · doi:10.3368/aa.53.1.1

The Morris Bay Kayak: Analysis and Implications for Inughuit Subsistence in the Pikialarsorsuaq Region

2016· article· en· W2526992425 on OpenAlexaffabout
Matthew Walls, Pauline Knudsen, Frederik Larsen

Bibliographic record

VenueArctic Anthropology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBaySubsistence agricultureArchaeologyPeriod (music)GeographyRadiocarbon datingHistoryEcologyBiologyArtAgriculture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we present results from a project to reanalyze the Morris Bay Kayak, which was discovered by Lauge Koch in Washington Land, northwest Greenland in 1921. This reanalysis is significant because the role of kayak hunting in Inughuit origins, development, and cultural transitions is poorly understood. Indeed, the subject is complicated by the apparent loss of the technology sometime before the 19th century. We reconstruct the Morris Bay Kayak’s frame, examine its life history, compare the structural fragments and associated tools to regional assemblages, and model the skills through which it would have been used. This analysis follows a recent report (Walls et al. 2015) where we presented new radiocarbon dates from the Morris Bay Kayak and proposed that it represents a tradition of kayaking that was practiced until shortly before the colonial period. Here, we expand on this position, and consider what the suite of skills, practices, and pattern of life that the Morris Bay Kayak represents demonstrates about the long-term relationship between Inuit communities and the unique ecology of the Pikialarsorsuaq region.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.557
Threshold uncertainty score0.892

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.357 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArctic AnthropologySame topicIndigenous Studies and EcologyFrench-language works237,207