MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210816169 · doi:10.1080/15528014.2021.2025311

Coming full circle: a critical review of the historical changes in governance, nutrition and food security of Labrador Inuit between 1500 and 2005

2022· review· en· W4210816169 on OpenAlexaffabout
Renee Bowers, Gail Turner, Ian D. Graham, Chris Furgal, Lise Dubois

Bibliographic record

VenueFood Culture & Society · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsTrent UniversityOttawa HospitalInstitute of Population and Public HealthUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousGeographyGovernment (linguistics)Food securityPsychological resilienceFood habitsColonizationResilience (materials science)Corporate governanceSocioeconomicsPolitical scienceArchaeologyEcologyAgricultureSociologyEnvironmental healthMedicineManagementBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Labrador Inuit are an Indigenous People from northern Labrador, within the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada. Prior to European contact, Labrador Inuit were self-reliant. However, historical relationships with Christian missionaries, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the Government of Canada impacted their relationship with food, access to food, and the physical and social health of Labrador Inuit. This review is based on the stages of colonization. It uses a critical dietetics lens to examine the extrinsic causes of nutrition and food security issues that resulted from colonization, and describes the interventions implemented to address them. Moreover, the review shows the resilience and adaptability of Labrador Inuit as they came full circle from self-sufficient Labrador Inuit in the 1500s, to sign the first Inuit land claim agreement in Canada and form the Nunatsiavut Government in 2005.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.866
Threshold uncertainty score0.788

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.300 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFood Culture & SocietySame topicIndigenous Studies and EcologyFrench-language works237,207