Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article aims to analyse how Inuit extended families engage in collaborative childcare and rearing practices within the framework of their subsistence system. The study demonstrates that child sharing through care and rearing is crucial for continually generating an extended family through a cyclical drive of the subsistence system. First, I analyse childcare and upbringing in Inuit extended family by reviewing previous Inuit ethnographies and my participant observation in Kugaaruk, Nunavut, Canada, an off-road Inuit village in the Central Arctic. The data show that 1) child adoption is prevalent in nuclear families within an extended family, with nearly every nuclear family having at least one adopted child, which is similar to a stepfamily when one of the parents is not genetically related to the child; 2) there are no discernible differences in the emotional and behavioural attitudes of parents and their relatives toward their biological offsprings and adopted children; 3) the adult members of extended family collaboratively rear their children, facilitating their social and moral development and instructing them in survival skills, whereas parents bear the primary responsibility for childcare, including providing food, basic needs, protection and love. Finally, the collaborative childcare and rearing practices are analysed within the subsistence system, demonstrating that child sharing through adoption and cooperative childcare can be seen as an outcome of the subsistence system, particularly food-sharing practices, which play a pivotal role in the system. Then, based on this analysis, I show that sharing practices of food and children play a crucial role in the process of continually generating their world known as nuna (land), the extended family embedded therein, and the trust relationships among its members.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".