Reflections on the intercultural politics of food, diet, and nutrition research in Canadian Inuit communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This essay explores the intercultural dynamics of food and health research in Inuit communities over time. Multiple sources of information are used to explore Inuit subjectivity in research through different ways of conceptualizing and acting on food-related practice and knowledge. How people experience being the subject of research, how that research mobilizes knowledge and resources, and how these in turn feed back into the larger social field is an important part of an intercultural dynamic in the Inuit Nunangat. Scientific interest in the Inuit diet is among the oldest of preoccupations in the health field, stretching back to the earliest encounters of Europeans with Inuit. Today, diet-related health issues are still a major area of scientific investigation and public health intervention. A deeper consideration of both Inuit and researcher cultures in food and diet-related health research will lead to more effective health promotion activities in Inuit communities.
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 | 0.017 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.076 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".