MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2911728582 · doi:10.7202/1055441ar

Stratégies et équipements de la chasse au narval dans le fjord Inglefield (Groenland)

2019· article· fr· W2911728582 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Christiane Drieux

Bibliographic record

VenueÉtudes/Inuit/Studies · 2019
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fondé sur une enquête de terrain dans le nord-ouest du Groenland, cet article présente les stratégies et les équipements utilisés par les Inughuit chasseurs de narval dans la zone réglementée du fjord Inglefield au sud-est de Qaanaaq. Encore construit et utilisé actuellement dans la région de Qaanaaq, le kayak permet aux chasseurs d’approcher discrètement les troupeaux de narvals. Des harpons à propulseur et à tête basculante, ainsi que des systèmes de flotteurs et de freins perfectionnés pour une meilleure adaptation au contexte de la chasse au narval, donnent aux chasseurs l’opportunité de chasses fructueuses. Après une description ethnographique des chasseurs à la poursuite des narvals dans le fjord Inglefield, j’analyserai la stratégie de la chasse et la technique de lancer du harpon à propulseur depuis leurs kayaks. Je décrirai aussi la conception exceptionnellement sophistiquée de leurs armes et de leurs kayaks. Enfin, je discuterai de l’appropriation et de la redistribution du gibier capturé, ainsi que de l’évolution de la pratique de la chasse et de l’impact de nouvelles réglementations visant à protéger les narvals dans cette zone de reproduction.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.154
Threshold uncertainty score0.307

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.006
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.350 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueÉtudes/Inuit/StudiesSame topicIndigenous Studies and EcologyFrench-language works237,207