Bibliographic record
Abstract
Liveyers of Labrador derived this name by which they called themselves from livers here to distinguish them from migratory summer fishermen from Newfoundland, England and the New England states. John Parker estimated in 1950 that the Liveyers of Labrador numbered 3000. They were a hardy breed of people for which — in the age before commercial and military development came to the country—there was no stronger tradition than that of hunting and trapping. Liveyers were also fishermen and often joined visiting fishing fleets for the season or fished on their own account. Fishing was but one source of food and income that helped sustain them. In the fall, winter and spring, Liveyers relied on hunting and trapping. Indeed, for well over two hundred years, before and after the Second World War and the construction of Goose Bay for use by the United States Air Force, the Liveyers knew no other life. As the daughter of one trapper remarked with sardonic humour, We lived off the fat of the land and most years the fat was thin. Liveyers were a homogenous people. Among them are found traces of English, Irish, Scots, Welsh, French, Flemish, Portuguese, Inuit and the indigenous Nascaupi Indians of the Quebec North Shore. Their language shows evidence of archaic English and has much in common with the American English of New England in the way it adds new phrases to the language with refreshing simplicity. For example, the past tense of the verb toflybecomesflidas in He haven't Aid yet. Their language is as direct and colourful as anything created by their Newfoundland cousins: The glass dropped like a hot potato, speaking of the barometer, and Enough to blow your eyes out, of a raging gale. Liveyers also retain in thenspeech such words as thee and thou and gotten. In his account of a journey of exploration from Nain to Indian House Lake in 1910, the explorer H. Hesketh Prichard wrote:
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.051 | 0.008 |
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".