MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411114839 · doi:10.14430/arctic81665

Tautukkonik/ Looking Back: Piusigilauttavut Labradoriup Taggâni, 1969–1986/ A Portrait of Inuit Life in Northern Labrador, by Candace Cochrane and Andrea Proctor

2025· article· en· W4411114839 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Marian C. McKenna

Bibliographic record

VenueARCTIC · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPortraitGeographyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

somewhere' so everyone could learn from them as well" (p.70).Pawlowska-Mainville uses this statement as an example of building trust, rather than honouring the Elder's request to publish his stories.Still, the information that is preserved here could be valuable, especially to descendants of the men interviewed.Pawlowska-Mainville shares important teachings with her readers but, without acknowledging it, she genderizes these teachings, and those telling them, through her labels.This stands out to me because Ojibwe is a gender-neutral language; we don't have an equivalent of he or she, we use a genderless pronoun-wiin-that specifies a living being.Pawlowska-Mainville translates akiwenzidiziwin as "the old way of life" (p.28).I understand the term, although neither I, nor the first-language Elder I consulted, had ever heard it.But Akiwenzidiziwin translates more literally as "old-man life," a very gendered term (the Ojibwe language does not apply gender to life).She describes storytellers as [da]dibaajimowininiwag, those "who tell narratives of their lived experience in the bush or on the waters," and aadizookewininiwag as "the storytellers of sacred stories, myths and legends, and teachings" (p.67).She fails to acknowledge that she refers here to male storytellers (ininiwag), not all storytellers, as her English translations suggest.It concerns me that other researchers may unknowingly replicate such mistakes by using her terms.Despite these criticisms, I do recommend this book to anyone looking for tangible ways to make a difference for Indigenous communities and for life on our planet.Indigenous communities who are working to save their lands, resources, forests, animal, and all other relations from further development and death need the information in this book.Tribal councils or tribal ethics committees who are approached by academics wanting to do projects in their communities could suggest that the academics read this book and then come and do this work with thembecause it is going to take a lot of people a very long time to carry out this amount of documentation.Legislators, activists, and citizens who are looking for ways to advocate for Indigenous Nations having control of their lands need this book because it can help them begin that work.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.662
Threshold uncertainty score0.932

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.309 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueARCTICSame topicIndigenous Studies and EcologyFrench-language works237,207