What's not set in stone : Labrador carvers' views on the cultural and market aspects of Inuit art
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis provides a new context for the examination of Cunent (as of 2002), Labrador Inuit At by giving Carvers in Labrador an opportunity to discuss their views on their work and the broader field of Inuit Art outside a market context.The process used to facilitate this work revolves around a concept the author has termed Indigenous Methodology.In separate interviews conducted with John Terriak and with Gilbert Hay, they discuss their views on the Inuit Art market, on their work as cultural representation, and on representations of Inuit Artists in media and in scholarly writing, giving readers the chance to examine Inuit Artists' views in their own words as expressed to the author.who is a Labradorian of mixed Inuit ancestry.lll Chapter Two: Methodology and Methods Coming to terms with methods and methodologies within the context of Native Studies-particularly as an indigenous scholar, vr'as not an easy process.For me this was particularly vexing, as I could find no pre-existing format that suited my needs or satisfied the desire I have to do academic work that not only takes into account my academic subject matter (in this case Inuit Art), but also allowed me to undertake the examination of my position as researcher and indigenous scholar.I consider these examinations/positionings intrinsic to the advancement of my own scholarship and scholarship within Native Studies in general.To do a Native Studies thesis without taking my position as a native scholar into account would, I felt, run counter the very notion of Native Studies as its own discipline with its own particular genre of writing and research.Given this lack of a 'fit' within any recognized mainstream methodology, I decided to outline and define a methodology suited to the work I undertook, hereafter referred to as Indigenous Methodology.Methods are somewhat easier to find and reference, and indeed, my main method, interviewing, could be described as mainstream.The methods section within this chapter will show, however, that the use I made of these particular methods serves specifically to mesh with my Indigenous Methodology My second method-which I will describe here as a non-academic materials review, is linked directly to the concept of Indigenous Methodology.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.045 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".