Bibliographic record
Abstract
The syllabic writing system invented for the Cree was first introduced to Inuit in 1855 by Rev. Edwin A. Watkins (1827–1907) at Fort George and Little Whale River on the James Bay and Hudson Bay coasts, respectively. That same year at Fort George, Watkins prepared a small book of gospel selections in Inuktitut syllabics with the help of a young Inuk, Peter Okakterook (circa 1836–1858), and sent it to Rev. John Horden (1828–1893) in Moose Factory, who printed it on the press he had acquired for his mission. This small book is one of the earliest items printed on Horden’s press, and the only one printed in Inuktitut. Only one copy is known to have survived, at Library and Archives Canada, where it is catalogued under the title Selections from the Gospels in the Dialect of the Inuit of Little Whale River. The small volume of eight pages, transliterated into syllabics from Moravian publications prepared in the roman orthography used for Inuttut on the Labrador coast in present-day Nunatsiavut, was intended for use by Inuit in Nunavik. Although printed in syllabics using what are today seen as western Cree syllable-final symbols, the text is readable by and understandable to modern Inuit readers. This paper examines early missionary efforts to develop literacy for mission purposes among Inuit, including the printing and distribution of this small volume.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.080 | 0.030 |
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".