MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1537930087

The Colonization of Mi'kmaw Memory and History, 1794-1928: The King V. Gabriel Sylliboy

2014· article· en· W1537930087 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Julie Zatzman

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian journal of native studies · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTreatyLawSupreme courtHistorySociologyPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

William C. Wicken, The Colonization of Mi'kmaw Memory and History, 1794-1928: The King v. Gabriel Sylliboy. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2012. 328 pages. ISBN 978-1-4426-1155-9. $32.95 paperback.In the fall of 1988 as a journalist the courtroom, I witnessed a provincial court judge Sydney, NS, grow increasingly frustrated with the proceedings taking place before him. Fourteen Mi'kmaw men had been charged with violations under the province's Wildlife Act and a preliminary hearing into the charges underway. After lengthy testimony on details of eighteenth-century treaties between the Mi'kmaq and the British Crown, the judge protested, isn't a history lesson!In fact, it a lesson history, one of many that have played out Nova Scotia courtrooms concerning treaties and Aboriginal rights. A similar scenario developed 1928, when Gabriel Sylliboy, a Mi'kmaq, charged with trapping muskrats out of season. His defence a 1752 treaty between the Mi'kmaq and the British which he argued protected his Aboriginal right to hunt where and when he chose. Wicken's The Colonization of Mi'kmaw Memory and History examines the background of the case a unique contribution to our understanding of both past and present.Wicken's focus is not the legalities of the treaty, a field that has been well ploughed since the 1999 Supreme Court of Canada's ruling R. v. Donald Marshall Junior, which recognized the Mi'kmaq's rights to fish commercially as set out treaties signed by the Mi'kmaq and British 1760 and 1761. In fact, Wicken provides a refreshing caution against relying on legal evidence as a source of historical understanding. There is always a danger of distortion when recourse is made to a document or to a vision that must be sustained defending a right... The story told has often been shaped [more] by what needed than by what was (240).Instead, Wicken combines a multi-disciplinary approach with his extensive knowledge of Mi'kmaw history to allow a nuanced and persuasive understanding of circumstances a century ago. This highly readable book attempts to enter the minds of the five Mi'kmaw men who testified at Sylliboy's appeal. How did they come to know about treaties signed well before they were born? What their understanding of the treaties and how did the shifting tides of colonialism affect their understanding? What historical, political, social and economic factors influenced officials to lay charges at that time and place? Ultimately, [w]hat the men said is less important than why they said it, Wicken suggests (244).Part One explores factors that likely motivated settler Alex Gillis to demand that Sylliboy be charged, why the Crown decided to prosecute, and why Sylliboy took the unusual step of appealing (unsuccessfully) his conviction. Parts Two and Three identify changes how the Mi'kmaq framed the significance of the treaties from 1794 to 1928, the year of Sylliboy's appeal. This is the core of Wicken's thesis, that each succeeding generation between these years knew about the treaty, but understood its meaning for their own lives ways that were slightly different than the generation before. These changes were subtle, but telling. As evidence, Wicken relies on four petitions to the British prompted by relentless settler encroachment on hunting and fishing grounds. A 1794 petition recalled the treaty as one between two nations. The petition to remind the British of their promise to leave the Mi'kmaq in quiet possession of their lands. …

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.302
Threshold uncertainty score0.607

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0120.007
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.268 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian journal of native studiesSame topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207