Re-Presenting the Past: A New Archaeological Outreach Strategy for the Canadian Territory of Nunavut
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In 2013, an Arctic-based organization known as the Inuit Heritage Trust spearheaded a new campaign to increase archaeological awareness in the Canadian territory of Nunavut. While Nunavut remains an Inuit-centered territory—founded on the knowledge and values that have long sustained its predominantly Inuit population—the rules and regulations surrounding archaeological resources are largely grounded in more scientific, and distinctly non-Inuit, valuations of the past. For multiple reasons, Inuit and non-Inuit traditions for understanding and preserving heritage resources have proved difficult to reconcile, despite numerous attempts at community outreach programs and the regular hosting of archaeological fieldschools. For many Inuit, the methodological and impersonal approach to history endorsed by incoming archaeologists remains a foreign concept. This paper will present a series of community resources developed as part of the Inuit Heritage Trust’s new archaeological awareness campaign, produced in partnership with archaeologists Brendan Griebel and Tim Rast. These resources seek to address the question of how to educate about Nunavut’s past through a framework that aligns with the interests and realities of both professional archaeologists and Inuit populations. To date, this campaign has produced two unique resources: the first, a guidebook series that explores archaeology’s relevance to community members, students and heritage workers in Nunavut, and the second, a portable excavation and experimental archaeology kit. While the campaign does not intend to change the way that either Inuit or archaeologists value the past, it does attempt to create a mutual awareness of differing worldview so that both groups might better navigate the complex landscape of regulation and interaction ascribed to Nunavut’s heritage resources.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.043 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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".