MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3178050534 · doi:10.24043/isj.166

Mining for Greenlandic self-government: Fractal islands in the Anthropocene

2021· article· en· W3178050534 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Frida Hastrup, Nathalia Brichet

Bibliographic record

VenueIsland Studies Journal · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMining and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDanmarks Frie ForskningsfondAarhus Universitet
KeywordsAnthropoceneContext (archaeology)Independence (probability theory)PoliticsColonialismClosure (psychology)Environmental ethicsGovernment (linguistics)GeographyHistorySociologyPolitical scienceArchaeologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article explores the emergence of Greenland as an Anthropocene island through anthropological fieldwork in and around the decommissioned Nalunaq goldmine in the south of the country. The article takes off from the idea that Anthropocene activities are characterized by the invention, movement, and marketing of seemingly mobile resource units that can be identified and invested in regardless of landscape specificities, and explores how the production of Greenlandic gold complicates this idea of extraction. In particular, the article discusses how Greenlandic post-colonial independence and ambitions for mining both go together and undermine each other, creating new dependencies and relationalities along the way. Through analyzing parts of Nalunaq’s political context, infrastructural challenges, the gold that came out, and eventual closure, the article presents Greenlandic gold mining as a set of partly congruous, partly contradictory practices and ideas. The article thus specifies an extractive project that both is and is not possible on the world’s biggest island, and brings this to bear on how we might understand the Anthropocene.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.196
Threshold uncertainty score0.297

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations6
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIsland Studies JournalSame topicMining and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207