MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7131787965 · doi:10.5040/9798216419068

Inuit Women

2007· book· W7131787965 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueRowman & Littlefield Publishers eBooks · 2007
Typebook
Language
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEthnographyPortraitPresentation (obstetrics)Section (typography)Participant observation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Inuit Women is the definitive study of the Inuit during a time of rapid change. Based on fourteen years of research and fieldwork, this analysis focuses on the challenges facing Inuit women as they enter the twenty-first century. Written shortly after the creation of Nunavut, a new province carved out of traditional Inuit homelands in the Canadian North, this compelling book combines conclusions drawn from the authors' ethnographic research with the stories of Inuit women and men, told in their own words. In addition to their presentation of the personal portraits and voices of many Inuit respondents, Janet Mancini Billson and Kyra Mancini explore global issues: the impact of rapid social change and Canadian resettlement policy on Inuit culture; women's roles in society; and gender relations in Baffin Island, in the Eastern Arctic. They also include an extensive section on how the newly created territory of Nunavut is impacting the lives of Inuit women and their families. Working from a research approach grounded in feminist theory, the authors involve their Inuit interviewees as full participants in the process. This book stands alone in its attention to Inuit women's issues and lives and should be read by everyone interested in gender relations, development, modernization, globalization, and Inuit culture.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.577
Threshold uncertainty score0.840

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0220.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0500.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.286 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRowman & Littlefield Publishers eBooksSame topicIndigenous Studies and EcologyFrench-language works237,207