MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387304703 · doi:10.4000/transtexts.2188

Towards a Hydropoetics of the Arctic: Watery Connections in Restless River (Arnait Video Productions, 2019)

2022· article· en· W4387304703 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jenni Niska

Bibliographic record

VenueTranstext(e)s Transcultures 跨文本跨文化 · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsColonialismIndigenousNarrativeParallelsConstruct (python library)ArcticThe arcticTrope (literature)HistoryEthnologyGeographySociologyGender studiesEcologyArtArchaeologyOceanographyLiteratureGeologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines the ways in which the river in the film Restless River (Arnait Video Productions, 2019) medially constructs the Arctic from a female Inuit point of view. I argue that the cinematic techniques of the film mobilise the Inuit cosmological concept of Imaq (Water), thereby forming continuities between bodies of water – human and environmental – and revising the colonial trope of female Indigenous bodies as an extension of land to be conquered. The article examines scenes where the female Inuit body is paralleled to the riverscape and argues that these parallels visually construct a female gaze directed back at the colonial projections of Arctic people(s) while envisioning a connection of body and land that is based on hybridity and renewal. The choice of cinematic techniques speaks back to the violence of Canadian colonial images, challenges the narratives of disappearance and decay in relation to indigeneity, and imagines an Indigenous Arctic that is globally connected.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.212
Threshold uncertainty score0.422

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0080.007
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.297 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTranstext(e)s Transcultures 跨文本跨文化Same topicIndigenous Studies and EcologyFrench-language works237,207