“But What Is The Object of Educating These Children, If It Costs Their Lives to Educate Them?”: Federal Indian Education Policy in Western Canada in The Late 1800s
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Debates in the Canadian House of Commons in the last two decades of the nineteenth century revealed persistent differences between the Conservatives and the Liberals over federal Indian education policy and the administration of industrial schools. Until their defeat in 1896, the Conservatives supported a denominational industrial school system and a policy of rapid assimilation. The Liberals generally opposed denominational schools and believed the industrial school system was too costly and was not leading to rapid assimilation. After gaining power, the Liberals stopped construction of industrial schools in favour of boarding and day schools, but denominational influence remained strong. The Conservative emphasis on assimilation was replaced by measures that supported reserve-based segregation as earlier hopes for rapid assimilation diminished. Despite policy differences, neither the Conservatives nor the Liberals held Aboriginal cultures in high regard, and debates regarding the means and intent of Indian education played out against well-known, high mortality rates and often abysmal conditions in the schools.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.036 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
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".