Inuit hunters, Saami herders, and lessons from the Amadjuak experiment (Baffin Island, Canada)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1920-21, reindeer and Saami herders from Norway are sent to Baffin island on board the Nascopie. The Canadian Government not only hoped to make a lucrative business but also to introduce herding among the Inuit, assuming that reindeer and caribou both belong to the same species (Rangifer tarandus). But for various reasons, the Amadjuak experiment turned into a failure. Many reindeer died and Saami and their families decided to abandon the place. As for the Inuit, they helped the Saami but they showed no interest in becoming herders. They rather preferred their hunting and nomadic life. This paper explores the reasons of this lack of interest and its ontological foundations. For the Inuit caribou remain ambiguous animals: they are an ideal prey, they have to be hunted, but have to be respected so they can reproduce. They are also connected to the earth, the deceased and the ijirait, mountain spirits. Sometimes they are associated with an owner, they cannot be domesticated at a large scale nor dominated. On the basis of this ethnography the discussion between Ingold, Willerslev and Vitebsky on sacrifice as the ideal hunt is not very helpful to understand their practises.
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 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".