A place called Nunavut: multiple identities for a new region
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In contemporary cultural geography there is a general consensus that place and place identities should not be considered as fixed entities: it is not possible to determine objectively that Nunavut is this or that place. Rather, places and place identities are actively constructed by people as individuals, and groups of people. The North of Canada was long perceived as "a homogenous, empty space, outside of history, a place of romance, danger, challenge, mineral resources and so forth for white, southern men"' and this was reproduced in Canadian and perhaps even in global texts. Although many people South (andin Europe) might still think of the North in these terms, there are others who have started to challenge this idea as they do not recognise this to be the North they knew from experience, having lived there for many generations.This illustrates how this place, the North, does not have one single meaning, and this automatically leads to more observations. The fact that people challenged a dominant idea opens up the discussion on the role of power and dominance. It is also a reflection of the fact that not only people living in a place, but also outsiders, are important in constructing identities for that place.Although this dichotomy in perspectives provides useful insights into how one area can have different identities, and how over time one identity takes over the other, it is argued that instead of having just one dominant identity at any given time, more identities can always be ascribed to a place.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.002 |
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".