Perspectives on “Community” with Inuit Living in Southern Quebec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
What is a community? This seemingly simple question emerged at the outset of the Qanuikkat Siqinirmiut? (QS) research project on Inuit health in southern Quebec, led in partnership with the Southern Quebec Inuit Association. The question finds its salience in the rapid growth of a southern Inuit population in cities across Canada, a population that has distinct and significant health needs. After early qualitative research, we came to doubt whether the term community adequately characterizes the situation of the roughly 2,000 Inuit living in the South. Thus, this article examines the discourse of community. Specifically, we present an analysis of two schools of thought on the subject: first, the notion of community from classic academic work in urban geography by the Chicago School; and second, inuuqatigiitsiarniq (living well together), which comes from an Inuit system of values and model of health. We first describe the ethnographic data upon which our analysis is drawn and introduce key concepts. Then, we identify conceptual shortcomings in the Chicago School’s notion of community and describe how inuuqatigiitsiarniq expands and nuances the concept. Finally, we discuss the potential of using both concepts to foster a refined understanding of relational health for Inuit living in Montreal.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".