The Adoption of Christian Names and Surnames in the Moravian Communities of Nunatsiavut, Labrador
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The process of assigning personal names throughout Nunatsiavut, Labrador, in response to ecclesiastical and public desiderata is discussed in this article. Naming among the Inuit of Labrador's north coast changed during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries because of the Moravian mission. The adoption of German Christian names for children and adults was to indicate a religious identity change. The system that existed throughout the nineteenth century paired Christian names. Among married couples, the husband was named together with his wife and the wife with her husband in the possessive case, while the son's name was paired with that of his father and the daughter's name with that of her mother. Atitsiak-based naming among Labrador Inuit extended the kinship group as it had in other Inuit societies. It remained relevant and was accepted also by missionaries since Christian Inuit, unlike European Moravians, had no baptismal witnesses or sponsors who would have felt formal responsibility for the child beyond the primary caregivers. Traditional Christian double names for Moravian Inuit lasted in Labrador until the early 1890s when Christian first names began to be supplemented by surnames in response to governmental needs for bureaucratic identification.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".