Furs and Fabrics, Transformations, Clothing and Identity in East Greenland
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>Today Arctic clothing is an important research topic. The first European researchers were</p><p>\n</p><p>fascinated by the Greenlander’s sophisticated technology, and they brought clothing,</p><p>\n</p><p>kayaks and hunting equipment back to Europe. Researchers still admire the quality of the</p><p>\n</p><p>techniques used to produce a balanced material culture that was perfectly adapted to the</p><p>\n</p><p>Arctic environment. Fur clothing was much better suited to meet the Arctic challenges</p><p>\n</p><p>than the Europeans’ woolen garments. Nevertheless, Inuit clothing changed rapidly</p><p>\n</p><p>under the influence of European culture. Nowadays, Greenlanders wear baseball caps,</p><p>\n</p><p>military jackets and Nike shoes. Compared to the excellent hand-made fur clothing of the</p><p>\n</p><p>Inuit, European mass-produced fabrics seem to represent a step backwards. Why did the</p><p>\n</p><p>East Greenlanders break with the traditions of their ancestors? Why did they abandon</p><p>\n</p><p>most of their perfectly adapted and beautiful fur clothing, and why did they adopt new</p><p>\n</p><p>styles of dress? This book discusses the social implications of the changes in the clothing</p><p>\n</p><p></p><p>of Tunumiit (East Greenlanders)1 in relation to processes of social and cultural change in</p><p></p><p></p><p>\n</p><p>the East Greenlandic society</p><p></p><p></p><p>Dit proefschrift is uitgegeven in de reeksen: </p><p><br /></p><p>CNWS Publications en Mededelingen van het Rijksmuseum voor Volkenkunde ; no. 32</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p></p><p></p><p> </p><p><br /></p><p>CNWS Publications en Mededelingen van het Rijksmuseum voor Volkenkunde no. 32</p><p></p><p> <br /></p>
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it