MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2950012977

Hunting and the Quest for Power: Relationships between James Bay Crees, the Land and Developers.

2014· book-chapter· en· W2950012977 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Harvey A. Feit

Bibliographic record

VenueMacSphere (McMaster University) · 2014
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRangeland and Wildlife Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCommonsTributePower (physics)Library scienceArt historySociologyEnvironmental ethicsHistoryLawPolitical sciencePhilosophyComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hunting and "the quest for power" mean different things to different people. "Quest for power" can be a metaphor the James Bay Crees might use for the life of a hunter; it is also a metaphor other Canadians might use for the goals of both northern developers and government bureaucracies. I consider different ideas of hunting, power, and development, and show that how they are used by groups is related to their relationships to the environment and to other peoples. I look first at how James Bay Cree people and hunters often talk and think about themselves and about other beings in their world, and at what kind of relationships they develop. Many Crees, like some other people, approach relationships as the foundations of life. Family relations make it possible to grow from childhood to adulthood, social relations make it possible to become a full autonomous individual by learning how to be a person from and in relations with others. Careful environmental relations make it possible for present generations to work as part of an active world to survive. They also make it possible to exercise some power to shape the world as it is continually emerging by developing potential partnerships with other wilful living beings, including non-humans. Many others approach relationships solely as things which individuals create for their own purposes. For them relationships can be ignored because they think that individuals are separable from their relations to kin, society, and the world. In the later sections of this chapter I focus on how the governments of Canada and Quebec have tried to use or deny relationships in order to control the James Bay Crees and lands, and how the Crees have sought to exercise their autonomy by enhancing recognition of relationships. In doing this I show how environment, economies and politics are intertwined in relationships and conflicts over who governs the James Bay region and how it is to be developed.

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)0.005
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.871
Threshold uncertainty score0.256

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0180.034
Scholarly communication0.0130.008
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.176
Teacher spread0.160 · 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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMacSphere (McMaster University)Same topicRangeland and Wildlife ManagementFrench-language works237,207