Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article argues that Ehdiitat Gwich'in and Inuvialuit inhabitants of the Mackenzie Delta cultivate flexibility and a refusal of settler habits by actively avoiding stability and predictability. It discusses ethnographic insights into articulations of dependence, work, schooling, alcohol consumption, gambling and hunting, highlighting the virtues Mackenzie Delta inhabitants see in certain forms of volatility. While some volatilities are regarded as problematic, others are cultivated, rebelling against colonial control and enabling continuity in a fundamentally uncertain world. This article proposes re-evaluating ‘volatility’ as a term with ambivalent, but not only negative, connotations. It may become a useful idiom for coming to terms with a social and ecological world, in which control is neither possible nor desirable. Résumé Cet article affirme que les Ehdiitat Gwich‘in et Inuvialuit du delta du Mackenzie cultivent la flexibilité et le refus des habitudes des colonisateurs en évitant activement la stabilité et la prévisibilité. Il aborde les aperçus ethnographiques des articulations de la dépendance, du travail, de la scolarité, de la consommation d‘alcool, du jeu et de la chasse, en soulignant les vertus que les habitants du delta du Mackenzie voient dans certaines formes de volatilité. Si certaines volatilités sont considérées comme problématiques, d‘autres sont cultivées, se rebellant contre le contrôle colonial et permettant la continuité dans un monde fondamentalement incertain. Cet article propose de réévaluer la volatilité comme un terme aux connotations ambivalentes, mais pas seulement négatives. Il peut devenir un idiome utile pour s‘accommoder d‘un monde social et écologique dans lequel le contrôle n‘est ni possible ni souhaitable.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.117 | 0.017 |
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".