MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4282969171 · doi:10.25071/1925-5624.40422

“Who Will Write for the Inuit?”

2022· article· en· W4282969171 on OpenAlex
Valerie Henitiuk, Marc-Antoine Mahieu

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueTusaaji A Translation Review · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsImpact
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaCentre National de la Recherche Scientifique
KeywordsIndigenousBureaucracyContext (archaeology)Government (linguistics)Political scienceAdaptation (eye)HistoryPublic administrationLibrary scienceLawLinguisticsArchaeologyPsychologyComputer sciencePolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines the circumstances surrounding the first publication of an Indigenous novel in Canada, namely Uumajursiutik unaatuinnamut by Markoosie Patsauq, in 1969-70 It describes the context of the federal government’s cultural policy, in particular within the then Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and how this impacted relations with Inuit generally speaking, but also how it set the stage for bureaucratic involvement in the production of an English adaptation of Patsauq’s text, widely known today as Harpoon of the Hunter. Finally, we present our own rigorous new translations, titled Hunter with Harpoon/Chasseur au harpon, done in collaboration with the author and based on his original Inuktitut manuscript, suggesting some more ethical practices for working with Indigenous source texts.

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.

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 categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.864
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.257 · 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