Introduction: Counter-stories from the Arctic Contact Zone
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This special issue of Interventions presents essays from twelve scholars from the field of Arctic Humanities that collect, contextualize, and theorize micro-histories of encounters between Arctic Indigenous people or Arctic animals and European, Russian, and North American agents of empire in the long nineteenth century. In bringing out from Arctic archives Indigenous agencies, voices and aesthetic productions, animal presences and fates, the essays collected here contribute to ongoing academic efforts to decolonize knowledge on the region. This, in our case, means to (1) document the impact Euro-American and Russian imperialism had on human and animal life in the Arctic region; (2) foreground the knowledge, creative expressions, experience, resilience, and resistance of Indigenous individuals, peoples, and communities; and (3) expose the illusions of modern progress narratives (scientific, material, moral) that accompanied colonial ventures in the Arctic region. The Introduction to this special issue on “Counter-stories from the Arctic Contact Zone” presents a broad overview of the history of colonization in the areas of the Arctic (today’s Canada, Inuit Nunangat, Alaska, Kalaallit Nunaat [Greenland], Svalbard and Sápmi) that the essays address. It then sets the methodological framework for the essays through a discussion of postcolonial theory concerned with the politics of knowledge production and the possibilities and challenges of contrapuntal re-readings of the cultural archive. Central here is a discussion of how Mary Louise Pratt’s concept of the contact zone aids the discovery and documentation of counter-narratives that challenge and disrupt the colonialist meta-narratives that then supported empire and today continue to impact how dominant, capitalist cultures relate to, exploit, and extract from the Arctic region and its peoples.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".