Imagining the Great White Mother and the Great King: Aboriginal Tradition and Royal Representation at the “Great Pow-wow” of 1901
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 1901 Royal Visit to Canada of the Duke and Duchess of Cornwall and York (the future George V and Queen Mary) was marked by a series of ceremonies, not the least of which was the “Great Pow-wow”, staged by more than 2,000 Natives on a wide plateau outside Calgary. More than just an entertaining spectacle, the Great Pow-wow of 1901 was a hegemonic site in which competing representations of Natives, whites, and royalty converged. Officials from the Department of Indian Affairs sought to repress the expression of traditional Aboriginal culture, while other members of the state and a large segment of the press supported the participation of Natives as living examples of the heritage of British justice in Canada. For white Canadians, the pow-wow was an opportunity to define their own identity and imagine their place, and that of Natives, within the nation. At the same time, Natives used the opportunity to resist symbolic control and to ensure their presence and influence within Canada. Like other royal ceremonies, the Great Pow-wow of 1901 served as a contested site in Indian-white relations as both groups structured, manipulated, and imagined representations of themselves, each other, and above all, the monarchy, in order to both maintain and challenge the hegemonic order.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.042 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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".