MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1541724763 · doi:10.29173/mruhr109

Boundaries of Person, Boundaries of Place: Wilderness, "Indians" and the Mapping of Canada's Northwest Interior, 1857

2014· article· en· W1541724763 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Sabina Trimble

Bibliographic record

VenueMount Royal Undergraduate Humanities Review (MRUHR) · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsMount Royal University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWildernessIndigenousColonialismScholarshipRace (biology)White (mutation)ContradictionGeographyEthnologySociologyEnvironmental ethicsHistoryGender studiesPolitical scienceArchaeologyLawEcologyEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This essay identifies the creative and often divergent constructions of place and race in one document, the proceedings from a Parliamentary Select Committee in 1857, which empowered officials three thousand miles across the Atlantic to make varying claims to a vast and diverse expanse of Aboriginal lands and peoples in Canada. I apply theory from existing scholarship about the “mutually imbricated” nature of place and race in the making settler-colonial worlds to find how six hundred pages of testimony from white men with only marginal experiences on the land itself legitimized the dispossession and marginalization the original inhabitants of those territories.[1] I focus mostly on the lands between the Great Lakes and the Rocky Mountains, the bulk of which were fashioned in distant, imperial imaginations as “wilderness,” unfit for or in need of settler “civilization.” In conjunction with wilderness discourses, speakers defined the Indianness of the northwest interior. Mostly Plains peoples, the indigenous groups discussed in this document were universally painted as one with their environment: wild and uncivilized. They were, according to the commission, incapable of governing themselves responsibly, and were, worst of all, the sure victims of the “onslaught of colonization,” should they not become in some way transformed.The document provides some fascinating divergences in the mindsets of different colonial powers: the HBC, British settlers in Canada, and humanitarians. These divergences reflect how, as Bronwen Douglas suggests, “within colonial regimes and contexts […] the efflorescence of racially charged utterances and practices betrays an astonishing variety, fluidity and internal contradiction.”[2]During the sessions of testimony and debate for this enquiry, constructions of land and Indianness in the northwest interior came together to justify variant and often contradictory solutions to the “problems” colonizers identified in the “unsettled” territory. All discourses that produced, and produced by, colonialism could be harnessed to dispossess Aboriginal peoples; the means and justifications for doing so in this document varied.[3][1] Tracey Banivanua-Mar and Penelope Edmonds, eds., Making Settler Colonial Space: Perspectives on Race, Place and Identity (New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2010), 3.[2] Douglas, “Race,” 245.[3] Cole Harris, Making Native Space: Colonialism, Resistance, and Reserves in British Columbia (Vancouver: UBC Press, 2002), 48.

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)0.002
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.105
Threshold uncertainty score0.762

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0390.029
Scholarly communication0.0080.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMount Royal Undergraduate Humanities Review (MRUHR)Same topicIndigenous Studies and EcologyFrench-language works237,207