Mounties in the Frontier: Circulations, Anxieties, and Myths of Settler Colonial Policing in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Examining correspondence records from 1886 onward, this essay details how the North-West Mounted Police (NWMP) established patrol routes in the year following the North-West Rebellion. Discussing how patrols were intended to enhance the circulation of NWMP officers, the author borrows from Michel Foucault (2007) to examine how correspondence records characterize the objectives and methods of the new patrols. In part aimed at accumulating knowledge of natural and artificial conditions, the circulations aimed to anticipate, contain, and control outbreaks of perceived dangers. The circulation of patrols also produced various forms of knowledge and imaginings about the Indigenous population in the North-West. By continuously sorting and distinguishing between “good Indians” and “bad Indians,” circulations contribute to settler anxieties and elicit further calls for “law and order.” The author details how the enhanced circulation of NWMP patrols often produce anxieties and rumours that are rooted in the colonial imagination, serving to rationalize mechanisms of security as an essential function of liberal order-building.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.052 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".