Empire, the Maritime Colonies, and the Supplanting of Mi’kma’ki/Wulstukwik, 1780-1820
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Supplanting of Mi'kmak'ki/Wulstukwik 79 along with the absence of support from potential diplomatic allies in France and the United States -ensured that by the 1790s "the Mi'kmaq and other tribal nations on the Atlantic seaboard were painfully aware that the old times were over." 2 Depictions such as these are consistent with the more general historical narrative of an ongoing, far advanced dispossession of Native peoples in eastern North America as a whole.As Timothy J. Shannon understandably commented in a 2007 review of Alan Taylor's The Divided Ground: Indians, Settlers, and the Northern Borderland of the American Revolution, Taylor's study of the partitioning of Iroquoia between British North America and the United States brought out "the same problem that confronts other historians of Native Americans in this period, the sense that we have all heard this story before and we know that it is not going to end well." 3 This article will suggest, however, that the supplanting of Mi'kma'ki and Wulstukwik by the Maritime colonies, while certainly entering a critical phase during the waning years of the "long" 18th century, was characterized by a complex and distinctive pattern. 4 In this substantial portion of northeastern North America there were discrete though intertwined lines of development in, on the one hand, 2 Harald E.L. Prins, The Mi'kmaq: Resistance, Accommodation, and Survival (Fort Worth:
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".