“A Liberal and Paternal Spirit”: Indian Agents and Native Fisheries in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the 1890s native fisheries stood in the way of expanding industrial and sport fisheries in Canada. Federal regulations denied a commercial component to native fisheries, restricted harvesting to designated open seasons, and outlawed the technologically specialized and place-based fisheries on which native communities had depended for millennia. Although fisheries officers enforced these rules, Indian agents—the field workers of the Department of Indian Affairs—were the ones who oversaw day-to-day life in native villages, including the fisheries. This article examines the responses of Indian agents across Canada to an Indian Affairs circular sent in 1897, requesting information about native fisheries. The Indian agents' letters of reply suggest that it was the ordinary confrontations and administrative decisions over fishing spaces, gear, closed seasons, and licenses, rather than the official policies of the Department of Indian Affairs, that worked to redefine native fishing in accordance with settler interests. By extending so-called privileges to native fishers, Indian agents worked to conserve the resource for a settler society and assimilate native fishers into state management practices.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.057 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".