MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404814189 · doi:10.3828/hgr.2024.34

Growing up North

2024· article· en· W4404814189 on OpenAlex
Robert W. Park

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueHunter Gatherer Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicDiverse Educational Innovations Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The archaeologists who study childhood are ourselves the end product of an approach to learning that is antithetical to how learning occurred in one of the most evocative of foraging cultures: the Inuit. Archaeologists-to-be in most societies undergo direct instruction – ie formal teaching – throughout the many years of their education, starting in preschool. At all levels, from preschool through doctoral studies, learners are encouraged to ask, and are rewarded for asking, questions about everything. Each learner encounters many teachers, who provide active instruction and formally and rigorously evaluate the learner’s progress in acquiring the information or skills being taught. In stark contrast to this, Inuit children were expected to learn on their own, through observation and experimentation. Both direct instruction by adults, and the asking of questions by children, were actively discouraged. In today’s jargon, Inuit foragers emphasise experiential learning. This paper will summarise some of the ethnohistorical information concerning Inuit learning and explore some of the archaeological correlates and implications of emphasising that mode of learning.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.411
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.235
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.159 · 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