MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4323544804 · doi:10.1080/1369801x.2022.2162431

A Map of Divergence and Connection: Voices from Nineteenth-century Nunavut and Aberdeen

2023· article· en· W4323544804 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

VenueInterventions · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWhite (mutation)HistoryPeriod (music)GenealogyBiographyTone (literature)RedactionHoaxLiteratureArtArt historyAestheticsArchaeologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This essay explores interactions between five people – Inuit, Scottish, and American – in Nunavut and Aberdeen, Scotland, between the late 1830s and the 1860s. The fact that these people all knew each other, or of each other, provides an opportunity to investigate a rich network of communication between them over a twenty-year period. The main primary sources investigated include the first biography of a young Inuk, written by a Scottish doctor; an American explorer’s tale of his Life with the Esquimaux; and the personal journal of a Scottish whaling captain’s wife. The investigation focuses on five subjects which occur persistently across these works: blood, mapping, tea, maktaaq and other country food, and the act of leave-taking. The topics form nodes, sometimes of incommensurability between Inuit and Qallunaat (an Inuktitut word designating non-Inuit, usually white, people) but they can also become areas through which misunderstanding and separation give way to understanding and close bonds. The fact that in these sources Inuit voices are ventriloquized by white Scottish and American writers greatly increases the risk that Inuit historical voices could be misrepresented and misheard. As a non-Inuit scholar, I am acutely aware that I may mishear or misunderstand these voices myself. In my analyses of the source material, I can bring the close attention of a scholar of nineteenth-century literature to attend to tone, ambiguity, the historical period, genre, and also to the occlusions and confusion in the writing that may obscure (often unconsciously) the redaction of veritable, if not entirely verifiable, Inuit voices from the nineteenth century. But I may be wrong, and this uncertainty is fundamental to my methodology. The expectation of scholarly writing in the academy is that it will be presented in an authoritative voice, but my methodology while listening for historical Inuit voices in the chosen sources must entail uncertainty. Research in the following essay is an open letter to other scholars, and especially to indigenous scholars and readers, who may agree or disagree with what I hear and interpret of Inuit voices in some lesser-known works of the mid-nineteenth-century historical record.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.337 · 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