MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2618974667 · doi:10.17730/0018-7259.76.2.171

Confounding Culture: Drinking, Country Food Sharing, and Traditional Knowledge Networks in a Labrador Inuit Community

2017· article· en· W2618974667 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Joshua Moses, Bilal Khan, G. Robin Gauthier, Vladimir Ponizovsky, Kirk Dombrowski

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Organization · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousSubsistence agricultureTraditional knowledgeMental healthSociologyPsychologyGeographySocial psychologySocioeconomicsEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article presents evidence from one Northern Inuit community showing that networks associated with the exchange of traditional knowledge and subsistence foods among households overlap with alcohol co-use patterns. The findings presented here are based on a large social network research project that included 330 interviews with adult residents of a single community over the course of more than five months. These data belie depictions of alcohol use as solely pathological in indigenous communities. The fact that relationships at the center of traditional/cultural activities are simultaneously relationships through which ostensibly damaging behaviors are enacted necessarily presents a more complex picture than is often depicted in literature on Aboriginal mental health and well-being. Culture, we illustrate, is not a separate sphere of life where individual and collective well-being is produced by activities deemed healthy, excluding those behaviors understood as damaging. Instead, the sources of cultural continuity and resilience are embedded in activities that may also be considered harmful. The implications of these findings for culturally-based interventions are discussed.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.679
Threshold uncertainty score0.639

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.003
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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations6
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHuman OrganizationSame topicIndigenous Studies and EcologyFrench-language works237,207