MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4309332358 · doi:10.1080/00393630.2022.2130100

Species Identification of Common Native Arctic Mammals in Inuit Fur Clothing Based on Hair Microscopy

2022· article· en· W4309332358 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in Conservation · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNunatsinni Ilisimatusarnermik Siunnersuisoqatigiit
KeywordsClothingIdentification (biology)ArcticZoologyNative americanGeographyBiologyArtArchaeologyEcologyEthnologyHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Correct material identification is considered essential when documenting museum objects. This study examines the morphology of mammal hair and records the geographical use of common species in Inuit fur clothing collected by the National Museum of Denmark (NMD) from c. 1830–1940 in the Bering Strait region, Alaska, Arctic Canada, and Greenland. Through hair microscopy, the purpose is to test whether original identifications are correct to assess the origin of unique Inuit garments. By means of transmitted light microscopy (TLM) of stained, 1 µm thick cross-sectioned hairs and undyed, longitudinally mounted hairs, the research reveals that specific morphological structures are characteristic of the common native reindeer/caribou, musk ox, members of the seal family, domestic dog, wolf, Arctic fox, polar bear, and wolverine. Rarer animals (hare, lynx, otter, etc.) are not part of this study because of limitations in the collection. Hairs from seal species are difficult to distinguish from one another. Hairs from dog and wolf are distinguishable but have relatively similar morphology. Therefore, to confirm identification, supplementary analyses are required. The hair microscopy technique was used on 49 garments in NMD’s collections, and the results were compared to the original macroscopic species identification. The study revealed that the latter method is often erroneous when it comes to dog/wolf and wolverine fur.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.109
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.114
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.327 · 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