MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Modeling Complex Cultural Encounters in Contact and Colonial Greenland, 1690–1900

2018· book-chapter· en· W2890276592 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Peter Andreas Toft

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity Press of Florida eBooks · 2018
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWhalingColonialismDanishEthnologyGeographyAnthropologyHistoryGenealogySociologyArchaeologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the wake of European whaling and the presence of Danish colonists and missionaries, the Greenlandic Inuit were facing not only foreign people but also a new material culture in the form of European commodities between 1690 and 1900. Trade was the main motivation for these cultural encounters, but the nature and duration of local encounters affected Inuit use and reception of foreign things. This cultural exchange cannot be reduced to the simple dichotomy of Inuit and Europeans. Many groups were involved on both sides, and foreign commodities were accompanied by Europeans in some areas, whereas Inuit groups acted as middlemen in others. This chapter discusses the applicability of the Cross-Cultural Interaction Model to complex Contact and Colonial encounters based on the cultural biographies of glass beads, barrel hoops, and iron objects transformed into <italic>ulos</italic> (women’s knives) in the Historic Thule Culture.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.879
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.063
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity Press of Florida eBooksSame topicIndigenous Studies and EcologyFrench-language works237,207