Unsettling British Columbia: Canadian Aboriginal Historiography, 1992–2012
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This is the second of two essays examining the recent historiography of Canadian Aboriginal History published roughly in the last two decades (1992–2012) using a regional focus – British Columbia. Historians have been touched by trends outside their own discipline, even from beyond the academy. Aboriginal land claims, rights litigation, and landmark cases originating in BC, such as Delgamuukw , have made historians more aware of constructions of history in the courts. Scholars writing about Aboriginal history in British Columbia reference popular and community histories and education curricula alongside academic works. The fixation on colonialism has kept Native–Settler relations at the forefront. Recently, however, the scholarship has begun to push past mere explorations of BC's Aboriginal peoples in colonial history to consider colonialism within Aboriginal history and epistemologies. Indigenous‐centric scholarship has demanded a more substantial voice in the production of histories, some insisting on exclusivity. At the same time, academic historians seek out opportunities for cross‐cultural dialogues and listen attentively to alternative histories bringing them into the professional scholarship even at the cost of “unsettling” historical narratives.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".