Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit and knowledge transmission in a modern Inuit community : perceptions and experiences of Mittimatalingmiut women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis explores the concepts of traditional knowledge,Inuit Qaujimajatttqangit (Inuit traditional knowledge), and knowledge transmission.The work is based on my experiences during two field seasons working with women in Pond Inlet, Nunavut.From August to December, 2005, I conducted participant observation and unstructured interviews and coordinated a school program for youth to interview local elders about their knowledge and experiences with polar bear encounters.In the fall of 2006, I worked more intimately with three young women and three elderly women in a series of interviews, focus groups and photographic narrative exercises exploring perceptions and experiences in knowledge transmission.My work follows a micro-ethnographic approach and explores the process of knowledge transmission from the learner's perspective.The thesis documents young women's accounts of learning: it explores the ways that they make sense of their cultural knowledge and the roles that they play in filtering and adapting Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ) to be relevant in the modem context.In effect, it looks to discover what we can learn about people's understandings of Inuít Qaujimajatuqangit from the ways that they talk about their knowledge and describe their experiences leaming it.Ultimately, the accounts in this thesis highlight the role of individually and collectively constructed themes in shaping local understandings of Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit.They revealthat Mittímatalingmiul women see IQ as a multifaceted and dynamic system that is charactenzed by ongoing balance between ecological and social elements, between past and present experience and between continuity with the past and innovation in the present.IQ is experienced not as a thing to be known, but as a process of coming to know.While the dynamics of this process differ in the community and institutional environments, both emerge as key loci for the evaluation, filtering and continual evolution of Inui t Qauj imaj atuq angit.ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS As I come to the end of my graduate research, Ircalizethata great number of "thank you's" are in order.Above all, I am grateful to the students involved in the Polar BearEncounters Project, the community members who discussed their ideas with me, and the six women on whom this thesis is focused.I was continually impressed by your interest in the project, your willingness to engage in good discussion and your surprising openness in sharing yourselves so candidly.Elisapee Ootoova, Qamaniq Sangoya, Annie Peterloosie,"}i4alaya", "'Wendy" and "Leetia",I've leamed a great deal from you, not only about Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit andknowledge transmission, but also about family, gratitude for the things that we have and living good lives despite many challenges around us.Thank you for that.Thanks also to the interpreters who allowed these conversations to take place.Sarahme Akoomalik and Rachel Ootoova, in particular, were dependable, friendly and insightful
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".