“A Sense of Seal” in Greenland: Kalaallit Seal Pluralities and Anti-Sealing Contentions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article questions the conceptual terms upon which Inuit hunting practices are deemed acceptable in current international seal regimes. Specifically, the article examines how Kalaallit–seal relations in Greenland unsettle Euro-American seal regimes. It argues that the current narratives of Inuit seal hunting as a “sustainable, subsistence” practice (e.g., European Commission 2016) risk coopting Indigenous worldviews to suit Western interpretations. While narratives of sustainability and subsistence may soothe European anti-sealing sentiments, they may not resonate with Inuit knowledges and practices. By engaging with fieldwork interviews with hunters in Greenland, this article suggests that Kalaallit ways of sensing, knowing, and engaging with seals reflect reciprocal, as well as complex, human–animal relations. Utilizing Métis/otipemisiw scholar Zoe Todd’s analytical framework of “fish pluralities” (2014), the article considers how seals may exist in Greenland in a “plurality of ways” that extend beyond a simple needs-based use of a natural resource
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".