MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W599679579

Arctic Justice: On Trial for Murder, Pond Inlet, 1923

2002· book· en· W599679579 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Shelagh D. Grant

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousArcticPoliticsLawCriminologyPolitical scienceEconomic JusticeHistoryEthnologySociologyOceanography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite the fact that Nuqallaq was following Inuit customary law in carrying out a collectively sanctioned act to defend the community from the dangerously crazed trader Robert Janes, Canadian authorities made the unprecedented decision to put him and two accomplices on trial for murder. Grant shows how this decision was motivated by Canada's international political concerns for establishing sovereignty over the Arctic and how the outcome of the trial - Nuqallaq's sentence to ten years of hard labour in Stony Mountain Penitentiary and subsequent death from tuberculosis - was determined more by fear than evidence. In what amounts to a social history of North Baffin Island in the twentieth century, Grant offers telling portraits of the people involved, including the victim, Robert Janes of Newfoundland; Captain J.E. Bernier of the CGS Arctic, explorer and friend to the Inuit; English trader and entrepreneur Henry Toke Munn; the investigating RCMP officer Staff-Sargeant A. H.; Judge L. A. Rivet, and others. Most importantly we meet the remarkable Nuqallaq, his wife Ataguttiaq, and the Inuit of North Baffin Island. Arctic Justice will appeal to anyone interested in the Arctic and its indigenous peoples, contact history, anthropology, legal history, and RCMP history.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.524
Threshold uncertainty score0.946

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0220.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.003

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 head0.118
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations35
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicIndigenous Studies and EcologyFrench-language works237,207