MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1487176531 · doi:10.1353/his.2015.0026

New Peoples, Renewed Debates

2015· article· en· W1487176531 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Michel Hogue

Bibliographic record

VenueHistoire sociale · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

New Peoples, Renewed Debates Michel Hogue Adams, Christopher, Gregg Dahl, and Ian Peach (eds.)– Métis in Canada: History, Identity, Law & Politics. Edmonton: University of Alberta Press, 2013. Pp. 530. Andersen, Chris– "Métis": Race, Recognition, and the Struggle for Indigenous Peoplehood. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 2014. Pp. 267. After years of frustrations in the courts and the hard-fought struggles by Métis political leaders to secure recognition of Métis Aboriginal rights, it would seem as though the Métis are on a winning streak of late. Although their full implications remain to be seen, the Supreme Court's 2013 decision that the federal Crown failed to implement the land grant provisions set out in the Manitoba Act and the 2014 Federal Court of Appeal ruling that the Métis fall under federal jurisdiction as defined by s. 91(24) of the British North America Act, promise to alter Métis jurisprudence. The two rulings emerged after a decade's worth of cases (especially in the area of harvesting rights) that followed the Supreme Court's landmark 2003 Powley decision. The effects of these decisions, and of the expansion in litigation more generally, are being felt in Métis scholarship. Two recent books illustrate how this swiftly changing legal landscape have injected a new urgency to recurring debates within Métis historiography, even as they chart new directions for the field. In "Métis": Race, Recognition, and the Struggle for Indigenous Peoplehood, Chris Andersen argues that this changing legal landscape and the public recognition of Métis rights is actually a miscrecognition that is based in a faulty understanding of the Métis as a hybrid offshoot of "Indian" and "white" races, rather than as an autonomous Indigenous people. The racialization of the Métis as such, and the "tethering of the term to racial understandings of mixedness," he argues, is the outgrowth of Canadian colonial policies and the administrative categories used to classify Indigenous peoples and to diminish Métis claims to indigeneity (200). According to Andersen, the conflation of "Métis" and "mixed" in the legal and popular imaginations is rooted in the racial logics that define Métis-ness solely in relation to blood and on their presumed connections to other Indigenous peoples. The implication is that what makes the Métis "Métis" is, above all, the question of their not-quite whiteness, not-quite Indianness. This is hardly accidental. The racialization of the Métis as such is inextricably bound up in the broader settler colonial projects of land-taking and the use of race as a tool to facilitate the transfer of lands and to legislate Indigenous peoples out of existence. Andersen builds his case, first, by tracing how the notion of Métis hybridity has helped sustain a racialized understanding of who is or what it means to be [End Page 289] Métis. By way of illustration, Andersen uses the shifting currents in Great Lakes ethnohistory to show how, in recent years, ethnohistorians have used the moniker to identify the people in communities in the Great Lakes and beyond. Such practices have erased the analytical distinctions between "Métis" and "métis" communities that had been common in earlier studies, and that reserved the use of capital M "Métis" for communities (like that at Red River) that evinced a contemporary self-consciousness as Métis, along with the various markers of their distinctiveness as a new people: distinctive language, dress, cosmology, artistic traditions, political organizations, and a sense of their own history. Andersen criticizes those who suggest that other communities became "Métis" by virtue of their mixed ancestry, their separation from First Nations and white communities, and, in some cases, by their self-identification as "Métis" in the more recent past. By conflating non-tribal Indigenous settlements with the social and political dynamics at Red River, he argues that these observers diminish Métis legitimacy by reducing "Métisness" to the "mere condition of mixedness" (50). Andersen then proceeds to show how these ideas have also exerted tremendous power over juridical views of Métis rights and the statistical understandings of "M...

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score0.267

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0170.057
Scholarly communication0.0270.028
Open science0.0020.010
Research integrity0.0100.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.261 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHistoire socialeSame topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207