Measuring Inuit Health from Ungava to Nunavik via Nouveau Québec: Episodes in the History of Researcher–Subject Relations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inuit have been the subject of research attention since the earliest encounters with Europeans. Using the Foucauldian concept of biopolitics this article explores the history of researcher–research subject relations produced through health knowledge in the region now known as Nunavik. This history is organized in three time periods: The first is the “Ungava” era and is explored in the observations of members of the Hudson Bay Expedition and subsequent mapping efforts. The second “Nouveau Québec” era begins in 1912 when the current borders of Québec were established and lasts until 1975. After a period of indifference, research interest grows rapidly in the post-war period with a focus of social adaptation and culture change. The third era begins in 1975 with the signing of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. This marks the beginning of Inuit political development within an Inuit-controlled regional governance structure. The conceptualization of three different health surveys during this period shows an emerging complexity in how Inuit health is imagined. An upcoming fourth survey which marks the first time the study of Inuit physical, social, and community health will be initiated by an Inuit-led health authority.
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 | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".