Amuletic Tattooing among Central and Eastern Inuit Tribes from an Inuit Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This chapter presents an introduction to a research methodology of evaluating Inuit immaterial and material culture focusing on Inuttut Kakiuineq, the tattooing practice of central and eastern Inuit tribes, and aspects surrounding the practice in both precolonial religion and daily life. This effort is grounded in the perspective of a member of the culture with long experience as a tattoo artist, who, after a decade as a Western commercial tattooer, shifted in 2010 to pre-electric tattooing tools as a traditional practitioner of Inuttut Kakiuineq. The research draws on this cultural anchorage and language, as well as on academic literature, ethnography, anthropological descriptions, and archaeological objects, to focus on Inuit tribes who use a specific form of tattooing that uses amuletic, hunting-related patterns. Through pattern collection and analysis and demographic genealogy, the chapter interrogates the original purpose and language surrounding Inuttut Kakiuineq. It highlights the amuletic purpose of Inuit tattooing from the eastern half of Inuit Nunaat—the Inuit lands—by introducing patterns and their connection to the all-encompassing hunting of wildlife for food and materials that ensured survival in the coldest and harshest environment in the world.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".