Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: The revitalization process among indigenous people on the North American continent has been increasing since the beginning of the 20th century, especially after 1960 (Paldam 2017, 136 Fonda 2012, 172, Wallace 1956). In Greenland, there are examples of cultural revitalization dating back to the 1970s, but interest in Inuit culture and religion has especially increased over the past decade (Krutak 2014, 55 Pedersen 2014, 51). The purpose of this paper is to clarify the differences and variations of where and how the flourishing of Inuit traditions is expressed in today’s Greenlandic society. The paper highlights variations and differences between mainstream culture and niche religiosity and presents a model for categorizing different groupings in the field. Finally, the revitalization process is discussed as respectively an ethno particular niche religion or a New Age tendency with a global outlook. DANSK RESUME: Revitaliseringstendensen blandt oprindelige folk har været stigende på det nordamerikanske kontinent siden begyndelsen af 1900-tallet og særligt efter 1960 (Paldam 2017, 136; Fonda 2012, 17, Wallace 1956). I Grønland findes der eksempler på kulturel revitalisering tilbage til 1970’erne; men opblomstringen af inuitiske traditioner og religion er særligt højnet det seneste årti (Krutak 2014, 55; Pedersen 2014, 51). Denne artikels formål er at tydeliggøre de forskellige variationer af, hvor og hvordan opblomstringen af inuitiske traditioner kommer til udtryk i nutidens grønlandske samfund. Artiklen fremhæver variationer og forskelle imellem mainstreamkultur og nichereligiøsitet og præsenterer en model til kategorisering af forskellige grupperinger i feltet. Afsluttende diskuteres revitaliseringsprocessen som henholdsvis etnopartikulær nichereligion eller New Age-tendens med globalt udsyn.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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.
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".