Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The study aims to explore the concept of the indigenous and how Greenlandic and Sámi indigeneities is expressed, made sense of and contested within a Nordic context by using the Eurovision Song Contest as a branding platform. Design/methodology/approach Initiating with an introduction of the historical and political contexts of Sámi and Greenlandic Inuit indigeneity, the study compares lyrics, stage performances and artefacts of two Sámi and Greenlandic contributions into the European Song Contest. This is used to discuss the situated ways in which indigenous identity and culture are branded. Findings The study shows how seemingly “similar” indigenous identity positions take on very different expressions and meanings as Arctic, indigenous and global identity discourses manifest themselves and intertwine in a Greenlandic and Sámi context. This indicates, as we discuss, that indigeneity in a Nordic context is tightly connected to historical and political specificities. Research limitations/implications The study argues against a “one size fits all” approach to defining the indigenous and even more so attempts to “pinning down” universal indigenous issues or challenges. Practical implications The study highlights how decisions on whether or how to use the indigenous in place or destination branding processes should always be sensitive to its historical and political contexts. Originality/value By focusing on the most prevalent European indigenous groups, the Sámi from the Northern parts of Norway and Greenlandic Inuit, rather than existing nation states, this study expands on current research on Eurovision and nation branding. By exploring the role of the indigenous in place branding, this study also contributes to the existing place branding literature, which overwhelmingly relates to the branding of whole nations or to specific places within nations, such as capital cities.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".