Bibliographic record
Abstract
On a windy Friday evening in late June, 1994, hundreds of people crowded into three large tents erected in a Whitehorse park bordering the Yukon River.We were there to participate in the opening of the seventh annual Yukon International Storytelling Festival.One of the first speakers that evening was Mrs. Violet Storer, a Kwanlin Dun First Nation elder from Whitehorse.Daniel Tlen, Master of Ceremonies, introduced Mrs. Storer as a lay anthropologist and referred to her ongoing work documenting the recent history of life along the river.As Mrs. Storer began to speak, she wove her own memories of a childhood growing up on the Yukon River with stories she heard from her elders in the course of her work.Mrs. Storer also spoke the following day, and again she was introduced to the audience as a lay anthropologist.When I visited with her at home a few days later, she told me in more detail about the research that has engaged her for the last few yearsinterviewing, recording and translating accounts from elders and documenting her own memories.Three months earlier, Mrs. Storer was one of several Yukoners who travelled to Juneau, Alaska, to attend a very different kind of gathering -the annual conference of the Alaska Anthropology Association.Held at a downtown Juneau hotel, it featured three days of formal papers presented by anthropologists whose work focuses on ri.orthwestern North America.Five First Nations students, including Marilyn Jensen, Ingrid Johnson, and Alice Carlick from the Yukon, Pam Brown from W aglisla (Bella Bella) British Columbia and Miranda Wright from Alaska each presented research papers at that conference. 1 These two events contribute to an ongoing history of anthropology in the North.They show how anthropological objectives and paradigms are being re-evaluated as elders and younger people from indigenous communities address concerns about cultural representation at public festivals, in popular and academic writings, in museum and gallery
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 | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.002 |
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".