Inuit plant use in the eastern Subarctic: comparative ethnobotany in Kangiqsualujjuaq, Nunavik, and in Nain, Nunatsiavut
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Plants are important in traditional Inuit life. They are used for food, tea, medicine, etc. Based on semi-structured interviews with 35 informants, we documented and compared plant names and uses in Kangiqsualujjuaq, Nunavik, and in Nain, Nunatsiavut. Plant names and uses were expected to be similar between communities owing to common boreal–subarctic environments and cultural ties. Both communities reported the same number of taxa, with equivalent proportions of vascular and nonvascular plants, growth forms, use categories, and medicinal uses. Forty-three species were used in each community, for a total of 78 species from 39 families. Despite a high overlap in species distributions, only 35% of nonvascular and 56% of vascular species were used in both communities. Correspondence was higher at the family level (64% of nonvascular and 75% of vascular families shared). The Ericaceae family was the most used, followed by Rosaceae. Thirteen of 30 medicinal species were shared between communities. There was a low correspondence regarding the conditions for which the medicinal species were used. Edible taxa were shared the most (52%). Plant uses unique to either Nain or Kangiqsualujjuaq may reveal separate bodies of traditional knowledge, or may reflect an overall loss of ethnobotanical knowledge in the Subarctic due to recent lifestyle changes.
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 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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".