Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter explores how different understandings of health held by Inuit and non-Inuit working in the North at times correspond, at others pass each other by unnoticed, and occasionally conflict. The different cultures of health and healing are the means through which these differences are experienced and expressed. Furthermore, when different ways of understanding, acting on, and experiencing health intersect we see how power has been and continues to infuse medical practice, health, and healing in the North today. I draw on ethnographic examples from nearly 30 years of intermittent fieldwork and applied public health experience in Nunavik – the Inuit land-claim region that covers the northern third of the province of Quebec. Each of the examples I discuss are instances where the cultural foundations, social significance, and historical development of health and illness of Inuit and Qallunaat alike become visible. The meanings and actions that culturally shaped models of health engender, especially when different models of health come into contact, emerge from and illuminate broader socio-historical phenomena and the structures of social and political organization through which they are built. How Inuit think about and experience health is in itself interesting and has direct applications for the ongoing development of Inuit run health systems, in decolonizing the systems and ways of thinking in place, and in fostering health equity. Finally, such study brings us to a deeper appreciation of the Inuit world as it is sensed at the interface of the bodily experience, the physical environments where people find themselves, and the social worlds that transcend geography.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.030 | 0.049 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".