Mobilisation des imaginaires pour construire des natures autochtones nordiques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper is about two Northern territories and peoples, the Sami in the Swedish Lapland and the Cree of James Bay (Quebec, Canada).This comparison aims to show how the North is commonly seen as a human desert – completely wild – and how this imaginative space isfull of political and poetic constructions. The colonial vision of the North omits the Indigenous dimension of such territories or includes it as the Ecological Indian of Shepard Krech III. This study shows how what was a patronizing colonial perspective became a tool for the Sami and the Cree to legitimate their involvement in the management of local resources and the protection of nature. Simultaneously, the empowerment of the Indigenous inhabitants of the two Nordic lands – via protected areas such as Laponia or Assinica – is a means of development in the communities. In particular, it supports the emergence of tourism and thus reduces the mental gap between the South and the North and their peoples. Moreover, even when Indigenous tourism is criticized for the promotion of folklore and exoticism, it also enables young generations to reconnect with a culture in oblivion.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".