MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1973686713 · doi:10.1215/00141801-2007-047

“A Liberal and Paternal Spirit”: Indian Agents and Native Fisheries in Canada

2008· article· en· W1973686713 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dorothee Schreiber

Bibliographic record

VenueEthnohistory · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFishingFisheryNative americanIndian countryState (computer science)Resource (disambiguation)Fisheries managementGeographyPolitical scienceLawEthnologySociologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.369
Threshold uncertainty score0.700

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.197 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations7
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEthnohistorySame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207