MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2586624250

“Indigenizing” the Bush Pilot in CBC’s Arctic Air

2016· article· en· W2586624250 on OpenAlexaffabout
Renée Hulan

Bibliographic record

VenueNorthern review · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArctic and Russian Policy Studies
Canadian institutionsSaint Mary's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousArcticBroadcasting (networking)CorporationThe arcticDramaMulticulturalismContext (archaeology)Media studiesTelecommunicationsSociologyHistoryEngineeringPolitical scienceVisual artsLawComputer scienceArchaeologyComputer securityArt
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) cut original programming in 2014, it cancelled the drama that had earned the network’s highest ratings in over a decade. Arctic Air, based on Omni Films’ reality TV show Buffalo Air, created a diverse cast of characters around a Dene bush pilot and airline co-owner played by Adam Beach. Despite its cancellation, episodes can still be viewed on the CBC website, and the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network (APTN) has continued broadcasting the popular show. Through a content analysis of Arctic Air and its associated paratext, read in relation to the stock Canadian literary figure of the heroic bush pilot, this article argues that when viewed on the CBC, the program visually “Indigenizes” the bush pilot character, but suggests only one way forward for Indigenous people. On the “national broadcaster,” the imagined urban, multicultural North of Arctic Air—in which Indigenous people are one cultural group among others participating in commercial ventures—serves to normalize resource development and extraction. Broadcast on APTN, however, where the show appears in the context of programming that represents Indigenous people in a wide range of roles, genres, and scenarios, Arctic Air takes on new meaning.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.934
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNorthern reviewSame topicArctic and Russian Policy StudiesFrench-language works237,207