Culture contact and gender in the Hudson’s Bay Company of the Lower Columbia River 1824-1860
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis explores the example of the archaeology of Fort Vancouver not as an end in itself, but as a pointer to a more general call for greater sensitivity in searching for and interpreting evidence. In archaeological interpretation men are most visible. The history of excavation at Fort Vancouver could be adduced as a perfect example. Chapters on feminist history and Fort Vancouver history are presented as essential preliminary background, in two parts.\nPart 1 describes the general background relating to historical archaeological practice, the growing visibility of women in historical investigation, the history of the fort, its occupants, and its excavations. Part 2 moves to the new story my research allows to be told.\nThis new story is: 1) Mapping evidence establishes a layout of buildings, but with no clear material evidence of the presence of women. 2) Documentary evidence establishes a substantial presence of women with great clarity. 3) Excavations have tended to confirm the first pattern of evidence but to neglect the second pattern of evidence. 4) Finally, one building in particular provides an example of a structure used both by married with family and single occupants, and should have been excavated with that history in mind. It becomes an important test case – either as evidence of what can be proved, or as a cautionary tale of what should have been better explored, or as both.\nThe story told is one of mixed success. Some of the evidence (extant maps and documentary evidence of families) demonstrates that women can be made more visible.\nHowever, some of the evidence (especially that of the physical remains and artifacts) is now largely lost or was neglected or overlooked, making it more difficult to present a clear picture.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".