A Study of the Ethnotechnology of Indigenous Craft in Arctic and Sub-Arctic Waters of North America
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The design and construction of water-borne craft using "scientific" methods is a relatively recent development in the context of the whole history of humankind, and is by no means universally applied even today. Many traditional craft in current service still rely on the process akin to Darwin's natural selection concept. And the evolutionary process continues from Madagascar outrigger fishing canoes to Bangkok water taxis with "long-tail" propulsion systems, and from Haitian fishing boats with high performance new sails built from poly-tarp material to whaling umiaks in NW Alaska covered with tensioned membrane skins made from walrus hide and equipped with outboard motors. There can be value in studying the design, construction and operational approaches of these craft, which can lead to insights for the modern naval architect. Lessons such as optimizing weight/strength ratios, minimizing resistance, utilizing materials in clever ways, developing repairable structures etc., can all be learned from the study of indigenous craft. The indigenous peoples living above of the tree line on the North American continent exist in an environment where much of what is required to survive and thrive comes from the sea. This paper will specifically describe the development of skin- covered craft for use to support of the life-styles of the peoples of Arctic and Sub-Arctic North America in Alaska, Canada and Greenland.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it