MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2887743274 · doi:10.22230/cjc.2019v44n3a3376

Seal Hunts in Canada and on Twitter: Exploring the Tensions between Indigenous Rights and Animal Rights with #Sealfie

2018· article· en· W2887743274 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Irena Knežević, Julie Pasho, Kathy Dobson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Communication · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousAnimal rightsIndigenous rightsEthnologyPolitical scienceHumanitiesContext (archaeology)Social movementSociologyGeographyHuman rightsArtLawEcologyPoliticsArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background In 2014, a Twitter discussion of seal hunting, using the hashtag #sealfie, spurred a digital conflict between two rights movements—Indigenous rights in Canada and animal rights. This digital controversy touches on race, class, and geography.Analysis The hashtag’s life on Twitter obscures the two movements’ shared challenges: the undeniably neoliberal context consisting of ongoing economic struggles in northern and remote communities, and the continued loss of wildlife habitat.Conclusions and implications The authors analyze the #sealfie Twitter content generated between 2014 and 2017, exploring the tensions between the claims of the Indigenous rights and animal rights movements. They probe the failure of Twitter, and more generally social media, to generate a climate of genuine debate, and they consider how such digital platforms can serve as echo chambers for stereotypes and discriminatory discourse. Contexte En 2014, une discussion sur Twitter utilisant le mot-clic #sealfie a entraîné un conflit en ligne entre deux mouvements, l’un sur les droits autochtones au Canada et l’autre sur les droits des animaux. Cette controverse internet traita de race, classe et géographie.Analyse La présence de #sealfie sur Twitter occulta les défis partagés par les deux mouvements : le contexte indubitablement néolibéral de difficultés économiques persistantes dans les communautés nordiques et reculées et la perte continue d’habitat faunique.Conclusions et implications Les auteures analysent le contenu associé à #sealfie sur Twitter entre 2014 et 2017, explorant ainsi les tensions entre le mouvement autochtone et celui pour les animaux. Elles examinent l’échec de la part de Twitter, et des médias sociaux en général, de créer un contexte propice à de véritables débats. Elles considèrent en outre comment de telles plateformes numériques peuvent servir de caisse de résonance pour les stéréotypes et les propos discriminatoires.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.278

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0170.012
Scholarly communication0.0110.007
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.079
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.241 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of CommunicationSame topicIndigenous Studies and EcologyFrench-language works237,207