Reconstituting rural communities and economies: the Newfoundland fisheries household resettlement program, 1965-1970
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Newfoundland, the word 'resettlement' evokes strong emotions decades after the program was abandoned. Many people feel that a heartless government uprooted families who were living an idyllic lifestyle in remote communities scattered along the coast. My thesis is that households were not forced into slums by the state. Although they did not resort to violence, coastal people were not as apathetic or powerless as the literature on resettlement suggests. Although it was more coercive than the preceding provincial Centralization Plan, the notoriety of Newfoundland Fisheries Household Resettlement Program (FHRP) is due, in part to the dearth of historical studies of resettlement. Historians have left the field to social scientists and the artistic community to write the narrative that laments a lost heritage. The archival record is replete with evidence that coastal people redefined the objectives of the FHRP and pressured governments to amend the Resettlement Agreement. Through appeals to church leaders, provincial and national politicians, and the media they persuaded the Fisheries Household Resettlement Committee (FHRC) to approve moves that planners considered irrational, but which made perfect sense to the relocatees. When the FHRC agreed to concentrate a large number of fishers into a receiving community with scarce resources and employment opportunities, charges of coercion were heard in the capitals where lack of planning turned relocation into a debacle.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".