MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3177079903 · doi:10.82308/34854

Traditional and monetary resource sharing in an Inuit «Ilagiit»: Socioeconomic relations in Clyde River, Nunavut

2010· article· en· W3177079903 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Miriam Harder

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocioeconomic statusResource (disambiguation)GeographyEnvironmental resource managementSociologyEconomicsPopulationDemographyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Inuit have adapted to a mixed economy of subsistence hunting and monetary income since centralization into permanent communities. Socioeconomic changes in Nunavut are altering customary patterns of resource sharing. Access to non-traditional capital is now critical to the continuation of Inuit subsistence culture, but is not evenly accessible to everyone in the community. By following the flow of traditional and monetary resources in one ilagiit (extended family) in Clyde River, Nunavut, this research suggests that customary rules of sharing continue to guide the redistribution of traditional resources. However, the sharing of monetary resources is more complex, as the availability of these individualized resources is more constrained. The comparison between a similar study in 1999 and the 2009 study found that changes in the social structure of this ilagiit are complicating their economic organization, yet resource distribution is still guided by the priorities of the subsistence economy.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.176
Threshold uncertainty score0.353

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.078
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.291 · 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

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen MINDSame topicIndigenous Studies and EcologyFrench-language works237,207