Lines of Discovery on Inuit Needle Cases, <i>Kakpiit</i>, in Museum Collections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Drawing on examples of museum collections research by Indigenous people, including my own research experiences, I argue for the importance of Indigenous people's access to museum collections for cultural and language revitalization efforts. Access to museum collections generates and stimulates memories and knowledge among elders and young people; thus it helps to preserve and promote intangible heritage alongside interactions with tangible belongings. I position myself as an Inuk individual, utilizing Indigenous epistemology and methodology to guide my path in an effort to decolonize museum collections and to help foster a meaningful relationship between Inuit communities and museum collections. Through the study of needle cases in museum collections and interactions with local community members in Canada's Arctic, I explore the questions: How can Arctic museum collections serve as an intermediary between the Inuit community and the discipline of anthropology? How can Inuit perspectives and interpretations of our own cultural material influence knowledge about needle cases, as well as other cultural material that is curated in museums? [Inuit, needle cases, kakpiit, museum collections]
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 | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.030 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".