Honouring Experience: Cross-Cultural Relationships between Indigenous and Settler Women in British Columbia, 1960 - 2009
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis examines cross-cultural relationships between Indigenous and Settler women to challenge the dominant historiography that has overlooked women's lived experiences, and fill a gap in the literature concerning Indigenous – Settler relations. Conceptualizing the history of Indigenous – Settler relations as microhistories, this thesis argues that an increase of in case studies that are focused on Indigenous women’s experiences, are useful to nuance how historians think about colonialism at a macro level. Using a diaological approach I have situated myself as a participant within the research project and was able to partake in oral history interviews with Stó:lō and Settler women throughout the lower mainland in British Columbia. Throughout my discussions, it became apparent that female cross-cultural relationships occurred at certain places. Thus, this project analyzes the nature of female cross-cultural relationships that developed because of the residential school system, community interactions and religion. Were Indigenous and Settler women able to form meaningful relationships at these sites? If so, did these relationships change over the course of the twentieth century? By focusing on Indigenous women's experiences at these sites of encounter, it will be demonstrated that Settler women's colonial mindsets did not always determine the nature of cross-cultural interactions. This project makes important contributions towards an understanding of why some cross-cultural relationships were more meaningful and reciprocal than others. An analysis of colonial discourse coupled with case studies based on oral interviews offers a complex study of how colonialism and the dominant culture were experienced by Indigenous women in British Columbia from 1960 to 2009.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".