Tukitaaqtuq (explain to one another, receive explanation from the past) and The Eskimo Identification Canada system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The government of Canada initiated, implemented, and officially maintained the ‘Eskimo Identification Canada’ system from 1941-1971. With the exception of the Labrador Inuit, who formed the Labrador Treaty of 1765 in what is now called, NunatuKavat, all other Canadian Inuit peoples were issued a leather-like necklace with a numbered fibre-cloth disk. These stringed identifiers attempted to replace Inuit names, tradition, individuality, and indigenous distinctiveness. This was the Canadian governments’ attempt to exert a form of state surveillance and its official authority, over its own Inuit citizenry. The Eskimo Identification Canada system, E-number, or disk system eventually became entrenched within Inuit society, and in time it became a form of identification amongst the Inuit themselves. What has never been examined by an Inuk researcher, or student is the long-lasting affect these numbered disks had upon the Inuit, and the continued impact into present-day, of this type of state-operated system. The Inuit voice has not been heard or examined. This research focuses exclusively on the disk system itself and brings forward the voices of four disk system survivors, giving voice to those who have been silenced for far too long.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.064 | 0.009 |
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".