Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Drawing on new materialist and object-centered historical criticism, this article analyses colonial and post-colonial discourses of the Greenlandic figurines of the mythical being of ill-wishing and revenge, tupilak (plural form: tupilait). It focuses on three tupilak figures, made in 1905/1906 by a shaman Mitsivarniannga on a request of a Danish ethnographer William Thalbitzer, which today are part of the Danish National Museum collections. In the early 20th century, Greenlandic tupilait (and Inuit cultural production in general) were an object of fascination among European collectors, artists, and the general public. Asking what these objects had come to mean in (and for) Europe, this article points to marginalized Greenlandic narratives of Mitsivarniannga’s tupilat, and builds a critical narrative of these objects as material effects of the disruptions of indigenous community and sustenance by Western colonialism. Drawing on critical insights from the current post-colonial restitution debates, it problematizes the differential political-economic conditions and relations of power, under which the colonial acquisitions and procurements took place. The article argues that cultural heritage items, such as the three tupilat, are mnemonic ‘boundary objects’ that can potentially forge links between disparate memories of colonialism in Denmark and Greenland.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.092 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".