MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1518812385 · doi:10.3138/jcs.46.1.28

Peyote on the Prairies: Religion, Scientists, and Native-Newcomer Relations in Western Canada

2012· article· en· W1518812385 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Erika Dyck, Tolly Bradford

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Canadian Studies · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychedelics and Drug Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCeremonyIndigenousGovernment (linguistics)EthosMulticulturalismNative americanPolitical scienceEthnologySociologyAnthropologyLawHistoryArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In October 1956, a peyote ceremony took place at the Red Pheasant reserve in Saskatchewan. Organized by the Native American Church, the ceremony featured the use of peyote, a psychedelic substance from a cactus traditionally found in Mexico. Its use among Canadian Native peoples in the first half of the twentieth century had signalled concerns about American influences, but by the 1950s the issue escalated into a debate about spirituality, medicine, and Native-newcomer relations. The federal government by this time had embraced an ethos of multiculturalism, which meant that some officials tolerated the peyote ceremony as a legitimate Indigenous ritual. Local authorities, however, regarded peyotism as an abusive and dangerous ceremony and sought to criminalize its practice. The ensuing conflicts over how to handle the rise of peyotism on the Prairies forms the basis of this study. This essay unpacks this complex set of debates by explaining how various players—scientists, journalists, Native participants, police, and government officials- interpreted peyotism. The authors suggest that the peyote ceremony tested the limits of the federal government’s shift towards treating Aboriginal Canadians as immigrants.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.236
Threshold uncertainty score0.278

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.073
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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

Citations11
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Canadian StudiesSame topicPsychedelics and Drug StudiesFrench-language works237,207