Bibliographic record
Abstract
Greenland is in the process of full de-colonization and is moving towards independence as the first Inuit nation-state. This trajectory, which is influenced by a widespread sense of nationhood, appears to set Greenland apart from other Inuit communities in the Arctic. This article investigates the nature and role of understandings of “Greenlandicness” in Kalaallit Nunaat (Greenland), as well as their effects on contemporary nation building and visions for a future independent Greenland. It explores past and current debates about collective identity in Greenland by analysing political discourses as expressed in mass and social media, Inatsisartut debates and official documents, and various statements by politicians, parties, and Naalakkersuisut. The discourse analysis is inspired by Wetherell and Potter’s social psychology approach to identity analysis, including their understanding of “interpretative repertoires” (1988). The article concludes that although Indigeneity remains one source of the perception of the inherent right of the Greenlandic people to self-determination, the stronger current in Greenland politics and collective identification is one of classical (European) nationalism. Further, it finds that a number of discursive repertoires exist, which can be thematically labelled: Kalaallit Indigenous nationalism, pan-Inuit Indigenism, post- and de-colonialism, (post-)modernism, traditionalism, and ethnic and civic nationalism.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".