Where is the real trap? Domination and mutualism in Teetl’it Gwich’in sensibilities about trapping
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Teetl’it Gwich’ins, NWT, Canada have consistently positioned trapping as a valuable exercise despite fluctuations in the price of furs. Materialist anthropological theories applied to the trapping economies of boreal forest First Nations created an image of trapping as an activity that necessarily leads to individualism, alienation, nucleated family structures and disenchantment because the furs were being produced for trade in the world economy. The rise of anti-fur sentiments and Canadian industrial intrusions helped cement this imaginary of the trapper as corrupt but, instead of simply being the victims of European domination, they were positioned to have abandoned the ‘traditional’ sensibilities of trust and reciprocity to adopt the cruelties of the steel trap. In contrast with these conjectural world histories, the author argues that trapping as it is practiced today is far from being an alienating practice. Indigenous trappers work with animals in ways that suit their pre-existing practices. In order to dispel the imaginary of the cruel dominator of animals, more recent thoughts on mutualism in human–animal relationships help but it would be difficult to argue that this activity does not require some deception. Indigenous trappers will create methods and tinker with their traps in ways that are counterintuitive to some of the human–environment dualisms found in the deception paradigm that posits that the human presence and the intention to trap is hidden from the animal and tricks it into making a fatal error. The author argues that trapping is effective and valued because it plays upon the signs and expectations which lie between the past and the present, and between domination and mutualism.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it