Encountering Moose in a Changing Landscape: Sociality, Intentionality, and Emplaced Relationships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Drawing on research among Cree and Métis hunters, we consider how moose enter into situated relationships with humans, other beings, and one another. Moose engage in communicative acts exhibiting embodied intentionality and a relational theory of mind. Moose intentionalities and subjectivities are partly knowable to hunters through the co-constructed perceptual lens that develops as moose and humans make homes together in a shared landscape – a ‘domus’ as David Anderson puts it. Moose reward humans who deeply engage with them, sharing knowledge of moose life/death projects, intraspecies connections, and localised environments – in the hunting context and sometimes in other contexts as well. Moose and those who hunt them attempt to approach, engage, outwit, and beguile one another. In documenting both this contact zone and aspects of moose interiority and perception (umwelt), we contribute more-than-human knowledges from Indigenous people of northern Canada to theories of mutualistic relationships, entanglement, and emplacement.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".