Arktis i sorg og smerte:’Kodestikning’ som en affektiv metodologi i klimadebat og dekolonisering
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article examines how Kalaallit Inuit (Greenlandic) artists navigate a cultural and political context in which, by virtue of their status as Indigenous people, they are granted a particular authority to speak on behalf of the ice and nature. The article explores two very different artistic approaches to this question. It opens with Inuk Jørgensen’s short film Entropy (2024), which initially presents itself as a call from the Inuit to the surrounding society to change course before it is too late. The main part of the article focuses on Jessie Kleemann’s Arkhticós Dolorôs project, consisting of a video performance (2019) and a work of poetry (2021). Drawing on the concept of “code-stitching” (Ramazani 2015), the analysis examines how Kleemann delineates new ways of approaching a contradictory reality – one that, for Indigenous peoples, or perhaps especially for Indigenous peoples, spans languages, cultures, and worldviews. My argument is that Kleemann's performative explorations of modern Kalaallit Inuit identity can be seen as a political intervention, replacing the fetishized image of the tragic Inuit – frozen in the past and their essence as indigenous – with a remembrance of the historical trajectory. With the insights gained from Kleemann’s work, the article returns to Jørgensen’s film, which can also be read as an emotional intervention in an internal Greenlandic debate on resource exploitation. The analysis demonstrates that decolonization – even when it concerns indigenous peoples – is not automatically synonymous with environmental activism.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".