“It’s a bit like saying: I don’t see colour”: Unpacking Coloniality in Kalaallit Nunaat (Greenland) through Epistolary Collaborative Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: In this article we argue that the epistolary form can be used as collaborative practice—further expanding researcher-informant relations—where both parties enter an epistemic partnership and become co-researchers, co-theorizing and co-creating the research output together. We have been using the epistolary form as a means to exchange observations, ideas, and positionalities about coloniality in Kalaallit (Greenlandic Inuit) society today, and to investigate the stance young people take in this discussion. The article has developed from correspondence via letter-writing between the two authors and renders visible the dynamics of our epistemic relationship, an essential element of the collaborative process that often stays hidden. We hereby experiment with collaborative research practices and alternative ways of creating knowledge, as advocated by practitioners working with collaborative and experimental research practices in anthropology, clearly positioning ourselves as authors, an Indigenous scholar and a non-Indigenous researcher, in relation to each other as well as to the world around us.
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 | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".