Bretons, Basques, and Inuit in Labrador and northern Newfoundland: The control of maritime resources in the 16th and 17th centuries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Early Euro-Inuit contacts in Atlantic Canada raise a complex issue in the ethnohistory of resource exploitation. In the 16th century, Breton, Norman, and Basque crews developed a seasonal salt-cod fishery on the coasts of northern Newfoundland and southern Labrador, in about the same period that the Inuit moved southwards along the Labrador coast. The Basques also exploited the Strait of Belle Isle, between Newfoundland and Labrador, for shore-based whaling. Sometime before 1620, Europeans then appear to have withdrawn from Labrador until about 1680, when Canadian merchants based in Quebec began to exploit the Strait for salmon and seals, while French migratory crews edged northwards again from Newfoundland. European withdrawal from Labrador largely coincided with a long-running guerrilla war, waged by the Inuit against Breton and Basque fishermen exploiting Newfoundland’s Great Northern Peninsula. The chronological coincidence suggests that the movement of Inuit into southern Labrador by the end of the 16th century may well have motivated Europeans to avoid this coast through much of the 17th century. French attitudes to the Labrador Inuit can be contextualized by comparison with contemporary understandings of Euro-Inuit relations elsewhere. Inuit attitudes to Europeans are harder to assess but recognition of their struggle for access to resources is a step towards an appreciation of historical Inuit agency.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".