Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis explores the nature of Inuit occupations in southern Labrador, and their contacts with Europeans during the 17th century, based upon excavations from Snack Cove 1 and Snack Cove 3. Due to a paucity of archaeological investigations of the Inuit in southern Labrador, there is little known about how the Inuit lived in this area, and the form of their interactions with Europeans during the early Contact Period. Data from Snack Cove has been analyzed and compiled with ethnohistoric data to address the objectives of this research, and to situate the occupations at Snack Cove within the long term culture history of the Inuit in Labrador. The results of this research have shown that the Inuit occupations in southern Labrador during the 17th century were much the same as those in northern Labrador, with the exception that they are a part of the southernmost frontier of Inuit expansion. Further, the results of this analysis show that the nature of Inuit contact with Europeans was such that a large quantity of European materials flowed into Inuit exchange networks, but that the flow of European ideas, information and beliefs was less frequent during the early Contact Period. Through this research, it has been possible to portray the central role of the Inuit, and their decision making in the unfolding of events during the Contact Period.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".