Inuit Land Use Patterns in the Hopedale Region
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents preliminary insights from an exploratory archaeological survey of the Hopedale region, Nunatsiavut. Despite its continued importance — from the 17th century as an Inuit whaling community — to the late 18th century with one of Labrador’s first Moravian missions, to today as the seat of the Nunatsiavut government, Hopedale has seen relatively little archaeological activity since the 1930s, and most of the islands and bays near the town had never been surveyed. A brief survey in the summer of 2018 recorded nearly 30 prehistoric, historic, and ethnographic sites, affirming the Labrador Inuit Association’s 1977 statement– “Our footprints are everywhere”. The majority of these sites are the remains of short- and long-term summer habitation sites, and speak to the extensive and intensive use of Hopedale’s outer coastal region by Labrador Inuit since the 16th century. Here I explore what this land use meant in terms of Labrador Inuit lifeways and mobility, and the intersection of Inuit and European presences (both transient and permanent) that these spaces represent. I thus demonstrate that, as well as being on the periphery of many worlds, Hopedale has a long history as a nexus of economic and social activity.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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; 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".