Bibliographic record
Abstract
This essay had a simple purpose when it was begun: to publish a list of the Indian place names of the Victoria area which Songhees friends had told me about from time to time since 1952. It has grown, in the course of writing, into something more complicated than that. The rechecking of the names and their meanings gave opportunities to revisit old friends, and to learn more names and more of the Songhees history associated with them. It also led to the rediscovery of some of the earlier ethno-graphic and historical records, and to a conviction that these now need to be better known. Of the ethnographic records the most commendable are the field notes and yet-unpublished thesis of Dr. Wayne Suttles ( 1951). Of the historical documents, those which above all seem worthy of renewed recognition are the eleven Fort Victoria treaties of 1850 and 1852, by which James Douglas of the Hudson's Bay Company extin-guished the Indian title to the lands between Sooke and Saanich. An identical treaty which he made at Nanaimo in 1854 has recently been judged by the Supreme Court of Canada to be still in effect, and so by implication these untidy and almost-unknown little documents have been reconfirmed in their full status as treaties. A place name is a reminder of history, indelibly stamped on the land. To enquire about it is to reawaken memories of the history that produced it. To write about it is to retell some of that history. To work with Indian place names is to learn something about the Indian versions of what happened in history. As my list of place names and related information grew fuller, therefore, the picture of the Songhees and their neighbours that began to emerge could be considered as fairly representative of the ethnographic realities. A treaty, of the kind discussed here, is a white man's certificate of a transaction, initiated by him, to unburden the land of its Indian owner-ship. Being written in the white man's language, it tends to incorporate
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.057 | 0.013 |
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".